For context, there have been issues with MacOS 26 which have led many people to defer upgrading until MacOS 27 is available, and MacOS 15 is the previous version.
jghn 49 minutes ago [-]
> For context, there have been issues with MacOS 26 which have led many people to defer upgrading
For me the issue is liquid glass. Which I doubt is getting fixed any time soon
Hamuko 2 minutes ago [-]
Same. It's not the worst thing in the world, at least with Reduce Transparency enabled in the Accessibility settings, but I still don't feel any inclination to upgrade. My personal Mac Studio is macOS 15 and my work MacBook is on macOS 26, and I don't think there's a single thing that I find to be better on the work laptop than on my personal machine.
I might update to macOS 26 in September to be ready to update to macOS 27. Being two versions behind doesn't seem reasonable and I'd rather be on the "Tahoe but less shitty" version than Tahoe itself.
illithid0 43 minutes ago [-]
Also a liquid glass hater, but for what it's worth, 27 is supposed to make it a little bit better. I would prefer to go back to what I had before I had to upgrade into this horrible UI, but this is better than nothing.
You can almost turn it off on the 27 beta, and 27 seems to perform a lot better too.
flohofwoe 25 minutes ago [-]
You can already turn off most glass effects in 26 via "System Settings => Accessibility => Display => Reduce Transparency".
I had that turned off years ago (for reasons I don't remember), and was wondering what all the fuzz was about when 26 came out because I didn't see much of a difference ;)
IMHO the actual important visual changes in the 27 beta is that rolls back the bizarre oversized corner radius in Finder windows, and they also got rid of the 'every menu item must have an icon' idea.
trollbridge 3 minutes ago [-]
27 seems superior to 26 in almost every way, although I'm still on a fairly old beta.
lapcat 41 minutes ago [-]
> this is better than nothing.
Having installed the beta, I think that's the best you can say about it.
etempleton 34 minutes ago [-]
Also on the beta. Agreed. Definite visual and UX improvement over 26, fixing the most egregious issues with 26 implementation of Liquid Glass, but maybe not quite as good as 25 overall.
lapcat 31 minutes ago [-]
> not quite as good as 25 overall
Nothing will ever be as good as 25.
Because macOS 25 does not exist. ;-)
Jolter 36 minutes ago [-]
I hear it’s slower? Can you comment on that?
lapcat 32 minutes ago [-]
I haven't noticed or heard that it's slower.
illithid0 39 minutes ago [-]
As long as the UI improves and I can ignore all the AI stuff they're starting to push through, that's fine with me, though like many longtime macOS users, I'm not holding my breath for a bug-free experience.
embedding-shape 54 minutes ago [-]
Same thing happens almost every release. I've stopped updating my Mac machine until I see something in the release notes I literally have to have in order to continue doing macOS/iOS builds, otherwise I'm staying on the version I've validated to work, and I know the existing bugs with.
ExoticPearTree 46 minutes ago [-]
26.0 had a very annoying video jitter issue, but that was the first things that I noticed to be fixed in the next 26 release. Other than that, it worked just fine.
andreasley 38 minutes ago [-]
The bug that led to network connection issues after 49 days of uninterrupted uptime was a bit of a showstopper for me.
carra 21 minutes ago [-]
Are there no versions between MacOS 15 and 26???
kylemaxwell 20 minutes ago [-]
They changed the numbering scheme, so... no, there aren't. Version numbers are now year-based, but previously they were not.
19 minutes ago [-]
embedding-shape 3 hours ago [-]
Lots of "in collaboration with Claude and Anthropic Research" mentions, no mentions of other labs. I'd assume Apple already had access to whatever the most powerful model is at the various US-based labs, but perhaps not?
woadwarrior01 1 hours ago [-]
Those were voluntary disclosures by two Anthropic researchers and the security firm Calif. I know one more CVE on the list that was discovered using an AI agent and wasn't disclosed as such. I suspect there are many more.
The gist is, OpenAI hired a high ranking Apple employee who helped other Apple employees get hired by OpenAI and exfiltrate Apple trade secrets in the process.
Allegedly of course.
makeitdouble 21 minutes ago [-]
> high ranking Apple employee
Jony Ive basically works for Open AI (it's more complicated, but it's a good approximation), and has more or less rebuilt a designing team over there.
He's not the central person mentioned in Apple's accusations but that's arguably the central point that's triggering all of this.
> Lots of "in collaboration with Claude and Anthropic Research" mentions
I wouldn't say 4 is lots. The entire list is massive. I haven't counted myself, but someone claimed that macOS 26.6 has the all-time record with 155 CVEs.
senadir 3 hours ago [-]
Apple also hosts a copy of Claude internally in their servers.
bel8 31 seconds ago [-]
source?
cromka 2 hours ago [-]
Do they? As in Claude but on premises? Wonder if this is gonna be the solution that e.g. banks will require, exactly like they do now for cloud services (e.g. Azure on premises).
Cider9986 1 hours ago [-]
Banks are all about security theatre so probably not.
pbronez 2 hours ago [-]
Pretty extreme solution… you can get Claude models from AWS Bedrock and Google Model Zoo. These are both very helpful for compliance and security, but do require you to have a cloud strategy.
ainch 1 hours ago [-]
Some data is so sensitive it likely has to stay on premises though.
UqWBcuFx6NV4r 1 hours ago [-]
Yeah, albeit an increasingly second-rate experience, at least when it comes to Bedrock.
pjmlp 2 hours ago [-]
Map the amount of fixes with "... improved bounds checking...", "...improved memory handling...", "...improved memory management..." into the amount of developer, QA and release management teams salaries per hour, versus other stuff they could be working on, and that gives an approximate value of how using specific languages maps into monetary loss, and why companies are starting to care nowadays, given computers are always exposed to the world network.
snvzz 56 minutes ago [-]
If anything, there's a strong argument to switch to seL4.
bluecalm 2 hours ago [-]
>>, and that gives an approximate value of how using specific languages maps into monetary loss, and why companies are starting to care nowadays, given computers are always exposed to the world network.
You need also factor development time and ease of finding developers willing to work in a specific language. There are other factors like readability of the code (very verbose languages are likely to be worse) and cost of maintenance - languages forcing a lot of abstractions are likely much worse.
acdha 39 minutes ago [-]
> You need also factor development time and ease of finding developers willing to work in a specific language
This even more strongly favors Rust or Swift. Nobody is writing C or even Objective-C in 2026 as a growth language.
UqWBcuFx6NV4r 2 hours ago [-]
“nah bro, all those other developers are just garbage, I am the one person that can write memory safe C”
AJRF 3 hours ago [-]
Weird thing to see at number 3 on HN - is there some subtle context I am missing here?
Are we wink winking that it's a lot of fixes?
microtonal 1 hours ago [-]
It is a lot of fixes and the Android Security Bulletins of June and Android 17 also had a lot of fixes [1], despite ASBs only containing high/critical vulnerabilities (other vulnerabilities are only fixed in major releases and QPRs, which most Android vendors respectively roll out late or never at all).
I think the story here is that vulnerability discovery has accelerated a lot with LLMs, but since are adversaries are doing the same, it is more important than ever to update quickly (and not let some Android vendors get away with their lazy update schedules).
So using newish phones that don't get updated anymore could be a lot more dangerous now than it was just a year ago.
acdha 37 minutes ago [-]
Right - it was always dangerous but people who figured they weren’t important enough to be attacked might find out that LLMs have shifted that cost in the wrong direction.
grahamlee 3 hours ago [-]
And it's not actually that much information "about the security content". For example: "Impact: An app may be able to access sensitive user data. Description: An access issue was addressed with additional sandbox restrictions." This references CVE-2026-43819, which doesn't have any more information. Compare this with the nearly decade-old https://support.apple.com/en-gb/103680, and you see much more specific information about problems and their remedies (except in situations where Apple's action was to update a vendor component).
DStiego 3 hours ago [-]
Relevant context might be for example that there are 4 mentions each of Claude by Anthropic and XGPT by ThreatBook, both based on LLMs.
AI attribution might be one reason people are particularly curious.
I think it's because it's the first big batch of fixes found at Apple by Mythos.
croemer 3 hours ago [-]
I think that's it?
nizbit 3 hours ago [-]
Collision counts are absurd. CVE-2026-43739 has roughly twenty credited researchers; CVE-2026-43816 has nearly as many. And ai attribution getting credit.
For context, there have been issues with MacOS 26 which have led many people to defer upgrading until MacOS 27 is available, and MacOS 15 is the previous version.
For me the issue is liquid glass. Which I doubt is getting fixed any time soon
I might update to macOS 26 in September to be ready to update to macOS 27. Being two versions behind doesn't seem reasonable and I'd rather be on the "Tahoe but less shitty" version than Tahoe itself.
https://www.cultofmac.com/news/liquid-glass-changes-ios-27-m...
I had that turned off years ago (for reasons I don't remember), and was wondering what all the fuzz was about when 26 came out because I didn't see much of a difference ;)
IMHO the actual important visual changes in the 27 beta is that rolls back the bizarre oversized corner radius in Finder windows, and they also got rid of the 'every menu item must have an icon' idea.
Having installed the beta, I think that's the best you can say about it.
Nothing will ever be as good as 25.
Because macOS 25 does not exist. ;-)
Allegedly of course.
Jony Ive basically works for Open AI (it's more complicated, but it's a good approximation), and has more or less rebuilt a designing team over there.
He's not the central person mentioned in Apple's accusations but that's arguably the central point that's triggering all of this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48865294
I wouldn't say 4 is lots. The entire list is massive. I haven't counted myself, but someone claimed that macOS 26.6 has the all-time record with 155 CVEs.
You need also factor development time and ease of finding developers willing to work in a specific language. There are other factors like readability of the code (very verbose languages are likely to be worse) and cost of maintenance - languages forcing a lot of abstractions are likely much worse.
This even more strongly favors Rust or Swift. Nobody is writing C or even Objective-C in 2026 as a growth language.
Are we wink winking that it's a lot of fixes?
I think the story here is that vulnerability discovery has accelerated a lot with LLMs, but since are adversaries are doing the same, it is more important than ever to update quickly (and not let some Android vendors get away with their lazy update schedules).
[1] https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2026/2026-... https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/android-17
AI attribution might be one reason people are particularly curious.
CVE-2026-64691: Ruslan Dautov, Ruslan Dautov
Not necessarily. Could be two persons sharing that name. See https://revstat.ine.pt/index.php/REVSTAT/article/view/382
CVE-2026-43744: Mathis Mansière, an anonymous researcher