3 ms·

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

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