Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

adaptivesoftware.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

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

#31

Post by CharlesW »

AndriyKunitsyn wrote: post #6
dmitrygr wrote: post #2

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

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.

> 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.

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

#32

Post by pocksuppet »

bandrami wrote: post #19
awwaiid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 grease…

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.

If I don't want Instagram on my phone should Apple ban Instagram?

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

#34

Post by spwa4 »

trjordan wrote: post #25

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…

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

And to:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/minecraft-play-with-friends/id...

And to IDEs:

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/pythonista-3/id1085978097

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/id156...

The famous one:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/delta-game-emulator/id10485246...

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

#35

Post by skeledrew »

iristenteije wrote: post #27
wasabi991011 wrote: post #24

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…

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…

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.

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

#36

Post by iristenteije »

skeledrew wrote: post #35
iristenteije wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 for…

That too for sure

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

#37

Post by flykespice »

jimrandomh wrote: post #5

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…

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.

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

#38

Post by flykespice »

spwa4 wrote: post #34
trjordan wrote: post #25

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…

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 And to: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/minecraft-play-with-friends/id... And to IDEs: 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/pythonista-3/id…

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...

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

#39

Post by NetMageSCW »

iristenteije wrote: post #27
wasabi991011 wrote: post #24

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…

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…

The set of behaviors is certainly fixed or constrained with an LLM exactly the same way as an interpreter- if neither one has an escape from the pre-programmed APIs included in the app, they can’t escape regardless of what they do. Apple allows interpreters that run entered or downloaded code like programmable calculators and even more powerful environments. There’s nothing special about an LLM creating an app.

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

#40

Post by NetMageSCW »

antiframe wrote: post #26
petemill wrote: post #11

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".

The people who opt into walled gardens don't want to create, they want to consume. Those who create want unfettered access.

Strange that the Apple walked garden creates more apps than the “free” Android world than.

Plenty of creators in the walled garden.

Post reply on HN