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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I mean, you could outsource the mobile app building.
My company does basically our entire B2B stack and infrastructure in-house except for the mobile apps.
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.
iPads are great for specific things, as are phones, as are laptops/desktops.
Plenty of creators in the walled garden.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
