Squicle app icons on macOS 26

Just posted this feedback regarding macOS 26 "Tahoe" (FB19853155) - please support with additional submissions if you share my view. I will miss the beautiful and individual designed icons of the past!

"macOS 26 is enforcing squicles for app icons, falling back to a grey background for 3rd party apps without a compliant AppIcon asset.

As a result many original app icons are reduced in size and hard to distinguish because they share the same background color. Although I respect Apple's strive for an iOS-like UI on Macs, a smooth transition path would be more user- and developer-friendly ... e.g. with some info.plist property to opt-out icon migration, potentially ignored by a future macOS version.

The current solution causes a bad usability, and makes the system look inconsistent as many - especially free - software will not be updated with new icon designs. Please reconsider this bad design decision!"

Of course I was referring to "squircles" ... my bad!

Hi MyMattes — sharing some experimental data in case it's useful for the discussion.

While debugging icon jail behavior on Tahoe 26 for some other apps, I ran a controlled experiment that pinpointed an exact pixel-level trigger condition. Hadn't seen it documented anywhere, so it might add some context to your concerns about transition paths.

The trigger is a single binary condition on edge pixel alpha:

  • alpha ≥ 253 → filled rounded clip (no frame)
  • alpha ≤ 252 → forced squircle frame + scaled-down inset

The threshold sits exactly between 252 and 253. Verified with 12 controlled test apps using identical solid-color icons but varying alpha (255, 254, 253, 252, 250, 245, 240, 200, 128, 50, 10, 1). Values 255/254/253 render cleanly; everything ≤252 gets jailed with identical frame width regardless of how low alpha goes.

Two findings worth highlighting:

  1. Frame width is constant. alpha=252 and alpha=50 produce frames of identical size. Lower alpha just makes the inner image more transparent (the desktop bleeds through), but the system frame doesn't grow.

  2. It's not about the .icns size set, format, or how iconutil is used. Two .icns files with byte-identical iconutil output but different edge alpha render completely differently. Purely edge alpha decides.

This is, I suspect, why so many legacy iOS-ported apps are caught — developers commonly added subtle anti-aliasing on icon edges (alpha 240–250) for visual softness. This was always fine on prior macOS versions; Tahoe 26 reads anything ≤252 as "icon not designed for current spec, system will wrap it."

Practical implication for your transition-path concern: for raster-based icons, force every pixel's alpha to 255 in the source PNG before packaging into .icns. No need to migrate to Icon Composer or .icon bundles for the edge case where you just want to escape the squircle wrap. Four-line transformation in Python:

from PIL import Image
img = Image.open("input.png").convert('RGBA')
pixels = img.load()
for y in range(img.size[1]):
    for x in range(img.size[0]):
        r, g, b, _ = pixels[x, y]
        pixels[x, y] = (r, g, b, 255)
img.save("output.png")

Then sips to generate the size set and iconutil -c icns to package. This works equally well for unmaintained third-party apps where you can replace the icon manually.

Tested on macOS 26.4.1. I've also filed this as Apple Feedback FB22801803 in the hope that:

  • Either the threshold gets relaxed (e.g., to alpha ≥ 240)
  • Or the rule is at least documented in HIG/AppKit reference

Would be very interested if anyone here has tested intermediate alpha values (e.g., float-precision alpha in deep color images), or has counter-examples that would refine the rule further.

Experiment screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/OpMTctP Full fix script: https://gist.github.com/wenkaiqu014-hue/9e3c87e3cc0d3681fa1401b6a8ecc405

Squicle app icons on macOS 26
 
 
Q