It’ll be interesting to see if Apple comes around on customization of apps in general, because hopefully that’ll soon be what users expect.
In the world where users expect to be able to customize software more and more, apps start to look quite rigid and open platforms like the web that offer flexibility start to look more appealing.
Imagine a Lovable-style PWA that morphs into the app you vibecoded by storing the generated code in localStorage, for example - with cloud fallbacks to re-download the code if the storage is wiped.
ddlsmurf 41 seconds ago [-]
Linux and Windows have always been a lot more customisable, Apple always was the more "we know better than you what you want" company... And they weren't wrong enough
namanyayg 16 minutes ago [-]
That's funny to read this today morning because that's exactly what i've been working on.
We helped a Series B YC company with a whitelabel Lovable app so all of their customers can build exactly what they need on top of their SaaS!
It really works -- 1200 customers are now vibe coding daily and using their SaaS a LOT more.
lostlogin 4 minutes ago [-]
> open platforms like the web
I winced. The threats to the open web at the moment are depressing.
sheept 55 minutes ago [-]
It could probably store the code in the Cache API and serve it from a service worker so that it works offline and doesn't require evaling JavaScript
szundi 3 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
peddling-brink 2 hours ago [-]
As I understand it, these apps allowed running custom code from the app, and that has always been disallowed.
vmg12 11 minutes ago [-]
Other than exceptions like Roblox
echoangle 8 minutes ago [-]
Maybe disallowed but definitely not enforced. There’s an app called Pythonista that has allowed you to run arbitrary python code for years.
trillic 1 minutes ago [-]
I haven't been in the App Store ecosystem in a while, but the restriction is generally on running new Machine Code, all machine code needs to be signed on iOS. Interpreters get around this limitation, only the interpreter code that is compiled AoT and signed is actually running.
This tracks as the reasoning behind a lack of other browser engines, nobody can get comparable performance without a JIT, which would be compiling net new machine code that wasn't shipped with the binary.
The best way to handle this I would imagine within the current bounds of Apple's restrictions would be WASM.
TSUTiger 55 minutes ago [-]
there are terminal type apps in the app store though?
And it's always been a stupid rule. If I ship an app with a browser view, I can run any custom code I want in it. The rule is just a bandaid on Apple's lack of true sandboxing for apps.
wvenable 27 minutes ago [-]
> The rule is just a bandaid on Apple's lack of true sandboxing for apps.
That's not it at all. If an app can run arbitrary code then it can run other apps and that can by-pass the app store. They are specifically trying to prevent something like Wechat on the iPhone. It's not about security, it's about money and control.
mciancia 18 minutes ago [-]
Wechat works on iPhone
sheept 57 minutes ago [-]
That's because browsers are the most battle tested sandbox out there. It's not worth developing another sandbox if they already have Safari webview.
Jyaif 49 minutes ago [-]
> browsers are the most battle tested sandbox out there
The most battle tested sandbox... after operating system. After all, browsers rely on the OS to provide the primitives for their sandboxes.
And curiously those primitives are not exposed by iOS.
legitronics 55 minutes ago [-]
What does vibe coding add here? How is this any different than just arbitrary code execution on device, which is exactly what this gatekeeper rule covers?
(Not commenting on the rule, just want to see what’s new here)
wvenable 25 minutes ago [-]
The only thing it changes is the audience. Developers are an insanely small subset of iPhone users but these applications are targeting everyone else.
2 hours ago [-]
_alternator_ 1 hours ago [-]
The real problem for Apple here: in the fairly near future, the model of pre-defined functionality of software will be obsolete. All apps will be vibe coded and customized. Individual apps will basically be silos that protect proprietary data sources that are difficult to collect. But they will be infinitely more configurable than they are today.
WarmWash 1 hours ago [-]
I suspect any minute the first software with integrated AI customization will launch. Geeks will hate it, but regular folks will love trading all those god damn endless settings and menus for a simple prompt bar.
In an almost ironic twist, GUI will revert back to a "CLI".
WillAdams 22 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, I've been wondering what this might look like for a 3D printer slicer --- heck, I'd be glad to just have a series of sliders:
- aesthetic print quality
- dimensional accuracy
- strength
- ease of removing supports
- reliability of printing
which resolve to two values which estimate:
- print time
- volume of material used/consumed in supports
wolvoleo 12 minutes ago [-]
Yeah but not everyone has the same priorities within those sliders. For example strength is something that has many different types. Tensile strength, compression strength, shearing etc.
You use different infills to optimise for each type. This differs per model. An AI can surely help optimise it but it won't always know which one to prioritize, it requires knowing exactly what the printed model will be used for.
The same with aesthetics, usually you care about one specific side. And for ease of remove, are you willing to use support interface material? That makes a lot of difference.
ToucanLoucan 8 minutes ago [-]
Is there an actual use-case for this fan-fiction-esque prediction of software that rewrites itself, or is this just promoting AI for the sake of promoting it only?
I get annoyed enough when software I use changes arbitrarily in ways that don't benefit me, I can't see LLM vibed software that changes itself based on what it thinks I need being an improvement at all. It just feels like it would be even more annoying.
qubidt 2 minutes ago [-]
My ideal software: buggy in ways you can't diagnose, for reasons you can't intuit, reproducible by literally no one in the world, and with no one to file a bug report to
In the world where users expect to be able to customize software more and more, apps start to look quite rigid and open platforms like the web that offer flexibility start to look more appealing.
Imagine a Lovable-style PWA that morphs into the app you vibecoded by storing the generated code in localStorage, for example - with cloud fallbacks to re-download the code if the storage is wiped.
We helped a Series B YC company with a whitelabel Lovable app so all of their customers can build exactly what they need on top of their SaaS!
It really works -- 1200 customers are now vibe coding daily and using their SaaS a LOT more.
I winced. The threats to the open web at the moment are depressing.
This tracks as the reasoning behind a lack of other browser engines, nobody can get comparable performance without a JIT, which would be compiling net new machine code that wasn't shipped with the binary.
The best way to handle this I would imagine within the current bounds of Apple's restrictions would be WASM.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ish-shell/id1436902243
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/a-shell/id1473805438
And it's always been a stupid rule. If I ship an app with a browser view, I can run any custom code I want in it. The rule is just a bandaid on Apple's lack of true sandboxing for apps.
That's not it at all. If an app can run arbitrary code then it can run other apps and that can by-pass the app store. They are specifically trying to prevent something like Wechat on the iPhone. It's not about security, it's about money and control.
The most battle tested sandbox... after operating system. After all, browsers rely on the OS to provide the primitives for their sandboxes.
And curiously those primitives are not exposed by iOS.
(Not commenting on the rule, just want to see what’s new here)
In an almost ironic twist, GUI will revert back to a "CLI".
- aesthetic print quality
- dimensional accuracy
- strength
- ease of removing supports
- reliability of printing
which resolve to two values which estimate:
- print time
- volume of material used/consumed in supports
You use different infills to optimise for each type. This differs per model. An AI can surely help optimise it but it won't always know which one to prioritize, it requires knowing exactly what the printed model will be used for.
The same with aesthetics, usually you care about one specific side. And for ease of remove, are you willing to use support interface material? That makes a lot of difference.
I get annoyed enough when software I use changes arbitrarily in ways that don't benefit me, I can't see LLM vibed software that changes itself based on what it thinks I need being an improvement at all. It just feels like it would be even more annoying.