蒂姆,别破坏我的气氛。
Tim, don't kill my vibe

原始链接: https://irace.me/vibe

苹果的App审核流程越来越成为一种负担,尤其是在人工智能驱动的软件开发时代。苹果在为开发者提供AI工具方面落后,而像Cursor和Replit这样的工具却正在迅速加快应用的创建速度,使得App审核的繁琐更加突出。即使是简单的应用分发,也需要付费账户和复杂的TestFlight设置,这与使用Cloudflare或Netlify等平台部署web应用的便捷性形成了鲜明对比。 这种繁琐的流程吓退了开发者,尤其是经验不足的开发者,并促使他们转向React Native等替代平台和技术。虽然iOS仍然很受欢迎,但这种趋势可能会导致苹果开发者口碑和市场地位的缓慢下降。随着开发者越来越寻求阻力最小的路径,尽量减少与苹果的互动,苹果公司面临失去其在应用生态系统中掌控地位的风险,应该重视这些警告信号。web应用作为合法竞争者的崛起以及人工智能驱动竞争对手的潜力,应该促使苹果公司在为时已晚之前解决App审核的不足之处。

Hacker News 的讨论主题围绕 iOS 应用开发和苹果 App Store 展开。许多评论者表达了对苹果 App Store 审核流程的沮丧,认为其速度缓慢且限制严格。虽然一位用户赞赏 App Store 的审核机制,认为这相比其他应用商店而言更有利于消费者,但其他人则主张用户应该有更多自由,能够从其他来源安装应用。人们希望找到一个平衡点,既能保留审核过的应用,又能允许安装未经审核的应用。一位评论者对苹果未来的 AI 能力充满信心,认为他们的硬件、集成和生态系统是其优势所在。另一位用户则强调了 Web 应用的优势,指出其相比原生 iOS 应用更容易访问和部署。

原文

· 3 minute read

Recent criticism of Apple’s AI efforts has been juicy to say the least, but this shouldn’t distract us from continuing to criticize one of Apple’s most deserving targets: App Review. Especially now that there’s a perfectly good AI lens through which to do so.

It’s one thing for Apple’s AI product offerings to be non-competitive. Perhaps even worse is that as Apple stands still, software development is moving forward faster than ever before. Like it or not, LLMs—both through general chat interfaces and purpose-built developer tools—have meaningfully increased the rate at which new software can be produced. And they’ve done so both by making skilled developers more productive while also lowering the bar for less-experienced participants.

Barring a sharp correction, Apple looks increasingly likely to miss out on a generation of developers conditioned to first reach for tools like Cursor, Replit, or v0—especially as Apple’s own AI tooling remains notably absent. This goes well beyond enabling new entrants to “vibe code”—experienced mobile developers who, despite history with Xcode and a predilection for building native apps, are begrudgingly swapping out their tools in acknowledgement of the inarguable productivity benefits.

Sure, AI-assisted developer tools can be used to generate native iOS apps, but they’re not nearly as good at this as they are at generating e.g. React, whose developer experience advantage predates the LLM wave and has only since accelerated. While Mobile Safari can run webapps quite well, and native apps can be built using React Native, those clearly aren’t strategically ideal for Apple.

So iOS apps may increasingly be built using Cursor, and perhaps a larger percentage of them end up being built using React Native. And yet iPhones remain massively popular, so what’s the problem as long as they’re being built?

The wall that you’ll hit when actually trying to distribute them:

App Review has always long been a major source of developer frustration. Authoritarian yet inconsistent policy enforcement aside, it’s simply too hard to distribute software even to your own Apple devices, let alone someone else’s. This isn’t new by any means, but as the time to build an app shrinks from weeks/months to hours/days, it feels more egregious—and thus like more of a liability—than ever before.

I recently built a small iOS app for myself. I can install it on my phone directly from Xcode but it expires after seven days because I’m using a free Apple Developer account. I’m not trying to avoid paying Apple, but there’s enough friction involved in switching to a paid account that I simply haven’t been bothered. And I used to wrangle provisioning profiles for a living! I can’t imagine that I’m alone here, or that others with less tribal iOS development knowledge are going to have a higher tolerance for this. A friend asked me to send the app to them but that’d involve creating a TestFlight group, submitting a build to Apple, waiting for them to approve it, etc. Compare this to simply pushing to Cloudflare or Netlify and automatically having a URL you can send to a friend or share via Twitter. Or using tools like v0 or Replit, where hosting/distribution are already baked in.

Again, this isn’t new—but being able to build this much software this fast is new. App distribution friction has stayed constant while friction in all other stages of software development has largely evaporated. It’s the difference between inconvenient and untenable.

So what’s the alternative? Tech platforms are dominant until they aren’t and—obviously—iPhone hegemony won’t last forever. When sufficiently zoomed in, it’s really hard to see the first few cracks in the foundation—the harbingers of the beginning of the end, even if we’re a long way from the actual end. I would’ve recently laughed at the suggestion that webapps could legitimately contend on mobile but I’m no longer laughing. OpenAI building an iPhone competitor might sound similarly hard to believe, but don’t forget that such skepticism—“The PC guys are not going to just, you know, knock this out. I guarantee it”—was levied by incumbents towards the iPhone itself.

If Apple sees its developer tooling and policies as neatly-paved sidewalks, new desire paths are forming—paths increasingly designed to minimize touchpoints with Apple. Alarm bells should be ringing for those concerned with what remains of Apple’s developer goodwill, and consequently, its market position.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com