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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The outrage isn't about the rule. It's about the sudden decision to choose bureaucracy over common sense.
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.