Hilbert Hagedoorn (via Hacker News):
Synology has backtracked on one of its most unpopular decisions in years. After seeing NAS sales plummet in 2025, the company has decided to lift restrictions that forced users to buy its own Synology hard drives. The policy, introduced earlier this year, made third-party HDDs from brands like Seagate and WD practically unusable in newer models such as the DS925+, DS1825+, and DS425+. That change didn’t go over well. Users immediately criticised Synology for trying to lock them into buying its much more expensive drives. Many simply refused to upgrade, and reviewers called out the move as greedy and shortsighted. According to some reports, sales of Synology’s 2025 NAS models dropped sharply in the months after the restriction was introduced.
Now, with the release of DSM 7.3, Synology has quietly walked the policy back. Third-party hard drives and 2.5-inch SATA SSDs can once again be used without triggering warning messages or reduced functionality. Drives from Seagate, WD, and others will work exactly as they did before—complete with full monitoring, alerts, and storage features.
John Voorhees:
The change of direction was revealed in a Synology press release announcing DiskStation Manager 7.3, the OS that runs the company’s Plus line of NAS hardware.
This is great news for Mac users who felt betrayed by Synology’s previous announcement. However, as Linder also points out it does not change the fact that the same “Plus” series of 2025 NAS hardware does not include hardware-accelerated transcoding of H.264 and HEVC video, which previous models supported.
Rui Carmo:
I’m happy that sanity prevailed, although not in time to prevent me from getting a second (non-Synology) NAS–which I suspect is what many serious customers went out and did, if only to test the waters.
This was an amazingly bad own goal, especially it being absurdly obvious that their target audience would be knowledgeable enough to see through a lock-in strategy[…]
Previously:
Business DRM Mac macOS Tahoe 26 Storage Synology
Joseph Cox (Bluesky, Reddit):
Apple removed an app for preserving TikToks, Instagram reels, news reports, and videos documenting abuses by ICE, 404 Media has learned. The app, called Eyes Up, differs from other banned apps such as ICEBlock which were designed to report sightings of ICE officials in real-time to warn local communities. Eyes Up, meanwhile, was more of an aggregation service pooling together information to preserve evidence in case the material is needed in the future in court.
[…]
“Our goal is government accountability, we aren’t even doing real-time tracking,” the administrator of Eyes Up, who said their name was Mark, told 404 Media. Mark asked 404 Media to only use his first name to protect him from retaliation.
I’ve not seen an official statement from either Apple or the government. Perhaps there was a direct government request/demand about Eyes Up, but it’s also possible that there was a copyright concern (since the app collected content already uploaded to other platforms) or that Apple just took down everything related to ICE without specifically considering Eyes Up.
Wes Hilliard and Mike Wuerthele:
So, it’s not as if you can switch to another product or service in hopes of escaping these issues or voting with your wallet without going totally off grid. The problem doesn’t lie with the companies — it lies with those in power taking the actions, and making the “requests.”
Again, I think there’s a double standard here. If the government were requesting private customer data stored on Apple’s servers, you would blame the government (if the request were in fact unreasonable) but also blame Apple for not storing it securely. But design a system tailor-made for the government to control app distribution and it’s only the government’s fault for (ab)using it? This is not a recently discovered vulnerability. It was obvious in theory from the dawn of the App Store, and governments have been putting it into practice for almost as long.
Paul Haddad:
At the rate things are going, I expect an “Apple provides government with list of users who downloaded ICEBlock app” headline in a few more weeks.
It’s also a flaw in the system that Apple gets a list of all the apps everyone’s installed, even for free apps.
Richard Hyde:
It won’t just be a list of users though, thanks to “Find My” they’ll have their current location too.
Kyle Hughes:
I am complicit for having spent my career trying to make this platform attractive to users—drawing them out of places where their rights had more resilience.
[…]
I fixate on clear examples that make it easy to think about nuanced topics.
That it is federally illegal to distribute TikTok, yet it remains in the App Store, and that it is not illegal to host or share videos of law enforcement activity, yet these apps are being removed, is one such example.
Warner Crocker:
The Eyes Up website is still up and can be used for the same video archiving purposes with content uploaded from TikTok, Instagram or X and include “a mix of professional media reports and user-generated clips of ICE arrests.”
Previously:
App Store App Store Takedown Eyes Up iOS iOS 26 iOS App Law Enforcement
Apple (MacRumors):
Beginning January 1, 2026, a new state law in Texas — SB2420 — introduces age assurance requirements for app marketplaces and developers. While we share the goal of strengthening kids’ online safety, we are concerned that SB2420 impacts the privacy of users by requiring the collection of sensitive, personally identifiable information to download any app, even if a user simply wants to check the weather or sports scores.
[…]
Once this law goes into effect, users located in Texas who create a new Apple Account will be required to confirm whether they are 18 years or older. All new Apple Accounts for users under the age of 18 will be required to join a Family Sharing group, and parents or guardians will need to provide consent for all App Store downloads, app purchases, and transactions using Apple’s In-App Purchase system by the minor. This will also impact developers, who will need to adopt new capabilities and modify behavior within their apps to meet their obligations under the law. Similar requirements will come into effect later next year in Utah and Louisiana.
The way Apple wrote this, it sounds like they aren’t going to require verification of existing accounts. They also don’t say which “sensitive” information they’ll need to collect, and the legislation leaves this vague. I don’t like the idea of being forced to give Apple my driver’s license (or whatever), but neither do I like the longstanding system where Apple gets to see which apps I’ve installed on my iPhone or launched on my Mac.
Previously:
App Store Apple ID Children Family Sharing iOS iOS 26 Mac Mac App Store macOS Tahoe 26 Texas
Océane Herrero:
The investigation, led by the country’s cybercrime agency OFAC, follows a complaint in February by the French NGO Ligue des droits de l’Homme, based on the testimony of a whistleblower and former employee of an Apple subcontractor Thomas Le Bonniec.
As an employee of Globe Technical Services in Ireland in 2019, Le Bonniec analyzed recordings made by Siri to improve the quality of the voice assistant’s responses. That involved listening to thousands of user recordings, which Le Bonniec said could reveal intimate moments and confidential information, and could be used to identify users.
[…]
The February complaint also paved the way for an ongoing class action in France. That was inspired by a class action in the United States, which saw Apple accused of recording private conversations without consumers’ knowledge. Apple agreed in December 2024 to settle the case for $95 million. The company denied any wrongdoing.
Via John Gruber:
Sending recorded Siri voice interactions to Apple is opt-in, and the opt-in screen is very clear and cogent.
That’s the case today, but it seems like this investigation is based on the same time period as the American lawsuit. Back then, it was not clear to customers that the recordings were retained and used outside of Apple, and the generic iOS opt-out control did not affect Siri recordings. Apple later added a Siri-specific opt-out switch, and then made it opt-in. Here Apple’s response from January. I wish Apple had not settled the lawsuit then because it made them look like they had something to hide. Le Bonniec is called a whistleblower. Does he have any new information, or is the French lawsuit just piggybacking and trying to get its own settlement?
Previously:
Audio France iOS iOS 13 Lawsuit Legal Privacy Siri
