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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

[dead]

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

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.