6 ms·

Apple is enforcing an old App Store rule against a new kind of software

80 points by iristenteije 5mo ago

dmitrygr 5mo ago
Rules always existed and were clear. Outrage that they are being enforced seems strange.
- iristenteije 5mo ago
  The argument in the post isn't that the enforcement is unfair, more that the rule might not make sense much longer now that software can write itself. Rule was written for a world where the artifact reviewed and the artifact running were the same thing. That assumption is breaking, and not just for vibe-coding apps.
  - dogma1138 5mo ago
    The argument is silly, dev tools that allow you to run code were never allowed. There is no selective enforcement here and nothing has changed doesn’t matter if the code was written by a human or not.
  - bandrami 5mo ago
    Apple doesn't want software that can write itself available on its app store. I don't want software that can write itself running on my device. So for once Apple's priorities and the consumer's align.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
- AndriyKunitsyn 5mo ago
  No, not strange, selective enforcement is what's strange. In London, it's illegal to shake rugs in the street. If police actually starts prosecuting people for that, and not all people but just bald ones, it's natural that people won't be happy and start asking questions about the anti-bald bias.
  - CharlesW 5mo ago
    > No, not strange, selective enforcement is what's strange. It's not strange at all, and in fact it's unavoidble. Rules and laws have always been enforced with discretion because of external considerations like limited resources, proportionality, mercy, prioritization, etc.
- Sargos 5mo ago
  The outrage isn't about the rule. It's about the sudden decision to choose bureaucracy over common sense.
  - wvenable 5mo ago
    Sudden decision? This looks completely in-line with what Apple has been doing since the launch of the iPhone. I find the article most charitable to the idea that AI generated software is a different category than human generated software. It's merely a dev tool.
    - awwaiid 5mo ago
      Not AI generated software -- DYNAMICALLY generated software, like at run time and ongoing. Even in-app directed by the user. This is not a thing that existed before, a degree of customizability well beyond letting the user pick a color scheme or from one of a few layouts or default start screens. I don't know how good of an idea it would be, product-wise, to give programming level flexibility. I am reminded of greasemonkey scripts, but written in english maybe. Maybe it could be awesome. But Apple is saying "nope. Not interested in exploring this with you. BYE"
      - ooiihiniggbpn 5mo ago
        Good.
      - bandrami 5mo ago
        Maybe it could, but I don't want it on my phone, and I like the fact that I have at least some confidence that an app I install isn't that.
        pocksuppet 5mo ago
        If I don't want Instagram on my phone should Apple ban Instagram?
      - slopinthebag 5mo ago
seoulful 5mo ago
[dead]
jimrandomh 5mo ago
Apple's app store rules have never been compatible with devtools. It's kind of surprising to me that a Replit app existed on iOS at all; I would have expected that to be a nonstarter, and, given that a Replit app does somehow exist, I'm not surprised that they wound up unable to update. This is a big part of why I don't use any iOS devices. It's possible to sort of buy your way out of the restrictions by paying for a developer subscription, but at the end of the day it's way too totalitarian.
- flykespice 5mo ago
  Apple enforces their rules rather arbitrarily. Wouldn't emulators also fit the definition of self blunded apps? Anyway, I am glad I have never owned any Apple products in my life. They can screw themselves with their tight grip on user freedom.
bellowsgulch 5mo ago
At some point in life, you realize that some discussions, some arguments, are entirely wastes of energy and entire premises can be thrown away with simpler discussions and arguments. To this one, I say, who cares? Don’t publish on platforms where you can’t control your own intellectual property. Why use the App Store at all? It only serves to benefit Apple, and the vast majority of developers are simply making $100/yr payments to use their own custom software. For the largest companies who ship apps on iOS and Android because they have more money than sense and can afford to waste countless engineering hours letting barely qualified, fractionally compensated people say yes or no, I say let them. For the rest of us who are better managers, let’s own our own release process, and if that means building a website or a web app instead, go do it. Whatever you’re shipping to a phone isn’t for professionals anyway.
- knollimar 5mo ago
  Aren't ipads the new clipboards?
  - timnetworks 5mo ago
    I've never seen someone fling their clipboard against the wall so hard it shatters. Probably clipboard developers are just a better breed.
    - brewdad 5mo ago
      The go to move with clipboards is to break them in half across your knee/leg.
- MrZander 5mo ago
  > Whatever you’re shipping to a phone isn’t for professionals anyway. That's a bold statement. I hate developing for iPhone, but I don't have a choice because 85% of the users of our B2B app are on iOS.
  - Marsymars 5mo ago
petemill 5mo ago
It's a shame we let ourselves get to this point where creativity is limited by the walled gardens we've almost fully accepted as "worth it".
- antiframe 5mo ago
  The people who opt into walled gardens don't want to create, they want to consume. Those who create want unfettered access.
  - BirAdam 5mo ago
    I like both. I keep a Linux system (or 4) around for more creative stuff, but I use a Mac as my default machine. iPads are great for specific things, as are phones, as are laptops/desktops.
  - NetMageSCW 5mo ago
    Strange that the Apple walked garden creates more apps than the “free” Android world than. Plenty of creators in the walled garden.
    - antiframe 5mo ago
      It's interesting how different people's circle are. I don't know a single human that wrote any app for their phone on iOS. I know several that did it for Android and other phones. I am not talking about businesses selling apps to end users for gain, I am talking about people tinkering, making one off digital art projects, etc. The tinkerers I know want to just side load their apps and that's easier in less walled gardens.
slopinthebag 5mo ago
Something not really discussed but almost certainly a factor in Apple's reasoning is the blowback if someone vibe codes some type of app which creates a scandal, and it's reported as if it's an app available on the App Store. Look at the recent controversy with Grok on X as an example. Imagine BBC runs a story with the headline "iPhone App does {very_illegal_thing}", or "iPhone users can now do {extremely_morally_objectional_thing}", and then idiot governments start trying to regulate or issue fines. One reason for the rule is so their review process prevents these things from happening.
wasabi991011 5mo ago
Maybe I'm just not into the iOS ecosystem enough, but I find this article really hard to take seriously. The entire discussion is predicated on the existence of "adaptive software", not defined here and with no arguments as to why that's different than extensions or software interpreter. The article itself seems confused. If Replit has it's created apps being displayed within its app boundaries, how is that different than an app including an interpreter? The article states "you can't version and review adaptive software" but you sure can do that with an interpreter. The fact that you can create additional software doesn't mean the software you are using to do that isn't normal software.
- iristenteije 5mo ago
  Yes, you're right that interpreters also allow users to run code. And we could argue that Apple is simply being inconsistent in how it applies its policies. I think realistically the difference is in how popular these newer vibe coding apps are, but also the fact that they have a much broader scope of what can be generated. With Pythonista or a Lua-scripted game, the reviewer can assess what's possible: this app can do everything Python-with-this-API-surface can do, and nothing more. With LLM-driven generation, the set of possible behaviors isn't fixed. The same Replit app can produce totally different behaviors next month than it can today, without ever being resubmitted, based on model or system prompt updates. That's what I meant with "you can't review adaptive software".
  - skeledrew 5mo ago
    I think the main "issue" is that Apple won't be able to properly take their beholden 30% or whatever their fee is nowadays. A "wrapper" app has no real value by itself so they can't put a serious cost on it, but once it's on a user's device it can be used to create unlimited things of high value. Apple definitely doesn't want to miss out on taxing that value in their ecosystem, so it's easier to just block it and force devs to stick to apps with a appraisable value.
    - iristenteije 5mo ago
trjordan 5mo ago
This is ... not new at all? App-bundling apps existed. Apple rejected them. Low-code apps existed. Terminals existed. Apple rejected them. LLM apps exist. Apple allows them, because they render text, pictures, and video, but they don't run arbitrary code. Running arbitrary code is flatly forbidden, because users can't reason about them. I see absolutely no evidence that software is moving away from versions, any more than it was when apps could first search the internet, render recommendations, or deliver messages.
- spwa4 5mo ago
  Really? Apple lets you run custom code with network connectivity and even payments now. So how does that work? There's: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/roblox/id431946152 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/roblox/id431946152 And to: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/minecraft-play-with-friends/id479516143 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/minecraft-play-with-friends/id... And to IDEs: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/go-programming-compiler/id1503308279 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/go-programming-compiler/id1503... https://apps.apple.com/us/app/python-coding/id6738411328 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/python-coding/id6738411328 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pythonista-3/id1085978097 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pythonista-3/id1085978097 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/python-editor-app/id1672453872 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/python-editor-app/id1672453872 And then of course there's emulators, including: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/utm-se-retro-pc-emulator/id1564628856 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/utm-se-retro-pc-emulator/id156... The famous one: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/delta-game-emulator/id1048524688 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/delta-game-emulator/id10485246...
  - flykespice 5mo ago
    I see no reason those emulators wouldn't fall under the Blunded App rule, they "execute code" (interpret instructions). It's just Apple enforcing their rules when they see fit...
hayleox 5mo ago
This seems like perfectly correct enforcement of that rule. Yes, it's a terrible rule – it always has been. I am baffled that someone would think this is any different from how the App Store has been managed for the last 18 years. Walled gardens gonna walled garden.
deafpolygon 5mo ago
One of the reasons why these kind of software is not allowed is that it opens up a new class of social engineering attacks (install this, run this code) against users that have normally placed great trust in their software.

80 points by iristenteije 5mo ago

dmitrygr 5mo ago

Rules always existed and were clear. Outrage that they are being enforced seems strange.

iristenteije 5mo ago
The argument in the post isn't that the enforcement is unfair, more that the rule might not make sense much longer now that software can write itself. Rule was written for a world where the artifact reviewed and the artifact running were the same thing. That assumption is breaking, and not just for vibe-coding apps.
- dogma1138 5mo ago
  The argument is silly, dev tools that allow you to run code were never allowed. There is no selective enforcement here and nothing has changed doesn’t matter if the code was written by a human or not.
- bandrami 5mo ago
  Apple doesn't want software that can write itself available on its app store. I don't want software that can write itself running on my device. So for once Apple's priorities and the consumer's align.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
AndriyKunitsyn 5mo ago
No, not strange, selective enforcement is what's strange. In London, it's illegal to shake rugs in the street. If police actually starts prosecuting people for that, and not all people but just bald ones, it's natural that people won't be happy and start asking questions about the anti-bald bias.
- CharlesW 5mo ago
  > No, not strange, selective enforcement is what's strange. It's not strange at all, and in fact it's unavoidble. Rules and laws have always been enforced with discretion because of external considerations like limited resources, proportionality, mercy, prioritization, etc.
Sargos 5mo ago
The outrage isn't about the rule. It's about the sudden decision to choose bureaucracy over common sense.
- wvenable 5mo ago
  Sudden decision? This looks completely in-line with what Apple has been doing since the launch of the iPhone. I find the article most charitable to the idea that AI generated software is a different category than human generated software. It's merely a dev tool.
  - awwaiid 5mo ago
    Not AI generated software -- DYNAMICALLY generated software, like at run time and ongoing. Even in-app directed by the user. This is not a thing that existed before, a degree of customizability well beyond letting the user pick a color scheme or from one of a few layouts or default start screens. I don't know how good of an idea it would be, product-wise, to give programming level flexibility. I am reminded of greasemonkey scripts, but written in english maybe. Maybe it could be awesome. But Apple is saying "nope. Not interested in exploring this with you. BYE"
    - ooiihiniggbpn 5mo ago
      Good.
    - bandrami 5mo ago
      Maybe it could, but I don't want it on my phone, and I like the fact that I have at least some confidence that an app I install isn't that.
      - pocksuppet 5mo ago
        If I don't want Instagram on my phone should Apple ban Instagram?
    - slopinthebag 5mo ago

seoulful 5mo ago

[dead]

jimrandomh 5mo ago

Apple's app store rules have never been compatible with devtools. It's kind of surprising to me that a Replit app existed on iOS at all; I would have expected that to be a nonstarter, and, given that a Replit app does somehow exist, I'm not surprised that they wound up unable to update. This is a big part of why I don't use any iOS devices. It's possible to sort of buy your way out of the restrictions by paying for a developer subscription, but at the end of the day it's way too totalitarian.

flykespice 5mo ago
Apple enforces their rules rather arbitrarily. Wouldn't emulators also fit the definition of self blunded apps? Anyway, I am glad I have never owned any Apple products in my life. They can screw themselves with their tight grip on user freedom.

bellowsgulch 5mo ago

At some point in life, you realize that some discussions, some arguments, are entirely wastes of energy and entire premises can be thrown away with simpler discussions and arguments. To this one, I say, who cares? Don’t publish on platforms where you can’t control your own intellectual property. Why use the App Store at all? It only serves to benefit Apple, and the vast majority of developers are simply making $100/yr payments to use their own custom software. For the largest companies who ship apps on iOS and Android because they have more money than sense and can afford to waste countless engineering hours letting barely qualified, fractionally compensated people say yes or no, I say let them. For the rest of us who are better managers, let’s own our own release process, and if that means building a website or a web app instead, go do it. Whatever you’re shipping to a phone isn’t for professionals anyway.

knollimar 5mo ago
Aren't ipads the new clipboards?
- timnetworks 5mo ago
  I've never seen someone fling their clipboard against the wall so hard it shatters. Probably clipboard developers are just a better breed.
  - brewdad 5mo ago
    The go to move with clipboards is to break them in half across your knee/leg.
MrZander 5mo ago
> Whatever you’re shipping to a phone isn’t for professionals anyway. That's a bold statement. I hate developing for iPhone, but I don't have a choice because 85% of the users of our B2B app are on iOS.
- Marsymars 5mo ago

petemill 5mo ago

It's a shame we let ourselves get to this point where creativity is limited by the walled gardens we've almost fully accepted as "worth it".

antiframe 5mo ago
The people who opt into walled gardens don't want to create, they want to consume. Those who create want unfettered access.
- BirAdam 5mo ago
  I like both. I keep a Linux system (or 4) around for more creative stuff, but I use a Mac as my default machine. iPads are great for specific things, as are phones, as are laptops/desktops.
- NetMageSCW 5mo ago
  Strange that the Apple walked garden creates more apps than the “free” Android world than. Plenty of creators in the walled garden.
  - antiframe 5mo ago
    It's interesting how different people's circle are. I don't know a single human that wrote any app for their phone on iOS. I know several that did it for Android and other phones. I am not talking about businesses selling apps to end users for gain, I am talking about people tinkering, making one off digital art projects, etc. The tinkerers I know want to just side load their apps and that's easier in less walled gardens.

slopinthebag 5mo ago

Something not really discussed but almost certainly a factor in Apple's reasoning is the blowback if someone vibe codes some type of app which creates a scandal, and it's reported as if it's an app available on the App Store. Look at the recent controversy with Grok on X as an example. Imagine BBC runs a story with the headline "iPhone App does {very_illegal_thing}", or "iPhone users can now do {extremely_morally_objectional_thing}", and then idiot governments start trying to regulate or issue fines. One reason for the rule is so their review process prevents these things from happening.

wasabi991011 5mo ago

Maybe I'm just not into the iOS ecosystem enough, but I find this article really hard to take seriously. The entire discussion is predicated on the existence of "adaptive software", not defined here and with no arguments as to why that's different than extensions or software interpreter. The article itself seems confused. If Replit has it's created apps being displayed within its app boundaries, how is that different than an app including an interpreter? The article states "you can't version and review adaptive software" but you sure can do that with an interpreter. The fact that you can create additional software doesn't mean the software you are using to do that isn't normal software.

iristenteije 5mo ago
Yes, you're right that interpreters also allow users to run code. And we could argue that Apple is simply being inconsistent in how it applies its policies. I think realistically the difference is in how popular these newer vibe coding apps are, but also the fact that they have a much broader scope of what can be generated. With Pythonista or a Lua-scripted game, the reviewer can assess what's possible: this app can do everything Python-with-this-API-surface can do, and nothing more. With LLM-driven generation, the set of possible behaviors isn't fixed. The same Replit app can produce totally different behaviors next month than it can today, without ever being resubmitted, based on model or system prompt updates. That's what I meant with "you can't review adaptive software".
- skeledrew 5mo ago
  I think the main "issue" is that Apple won't be able to properly take their beholden 30% or whatever their fee is nowadays. A "wrapper" app has no real value by itself so they can't put a serious cost on it, but once it's on a user's device it can be used to create unlimited things of high value. Apple definitely doesn't want to miss out on taxing that value in their ecosystem, so it's easier to just block it and force devs to stick to apps with a appraisable value.
  - iristenteije 5mo ago

trjordan 5mo ago

This is ... not new at all? App-bundling apps existed. Apple rejected them. Low-code apps existed. Terminals existed. Apple rejected them. LLM apps exist. Apple allows them, because they render text, pictures, and video, but they don't run arbitrary code. Running arbitrary code is flatly forbidden, because users can't reason about them. I see absolutely no evidence that software is moving away from versions, any more than it was when apps could first search the internet, render recommendations, or deliver messages.

spwa4 5mo ago
Really? Apple lets you run custom code with network connectivity and even payments now. So how does that work? There's: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/roblox/id431946152 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/roblox/id431946152 And to: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/minecraft-play-with-friends/id479516143 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/minecraft-play-with-friends/id... And to IDEs: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/go-programming-compiler/id1503308279 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/go-programming-compiler/id1503... https://apps.apple.com/us/app/python-coding/id6738411328 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/python-coding/id6738411328 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pythonista-3/id1085978097 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pythonista-3/id1085978097 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/python-editor-app/id1672453872 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/python-editor-app/id1672453872 And then of course there's emulators, including: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/utm-se-retro-pc-emulator/id1564628856 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/utm-se-retro-pc-emulator/id156... The famous one: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/delta-game-emulator/id1048524688 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/delta-game-emulator/id10485246...
- flykespice 5mo ago
  I see no reason those emulators wouldn't fall under the Blunded App rule, they "execute code" (interpret instructions). It's just Apple enforcing their rules when they see fit...

hayleox 5mo ago

This seems like perfectly correct enforcement of that rule. Yes, it's a terrible rule – it always has been. I am baffled that someone would think this is any different from how the App Store has been managed for the last 18 years. Walled gardens gonna walled garden.

deafpolygon 5mo ago

One of the reasons why these kind of software is not allowed is that it opens up a new class of social engineering attacks (install this, run this code) against users that have normally placed great trust in their software.