Introduction

In January, a team called Mana achieved something impressive by generating iOS shortcuts using natural language. With just a sentence, users could connect over 590 native capabilities like alarms, health, and calendars, akin to mobile n8n, allowing for programming through speech.

Challenges with iOS Shortcuts

After about a week of excitement, they discovered that shortcuts could not run continuously in the foreground; complex processes would be terminated midway by the system. iOS has a 30-second timeout for background execution, making their product technically feasible but practically unworkable.

They then pivoted to creating mini-apps, where users could generate a complete application directly from a spoken command. With the product and promotional materials ready, they were set to launch.

Apple’s Response

However, Apple took decisive action. On March 18, reports surfaced that Apple was blocking updates for several vibe coding applications on the App Store. Notable products affected included Replit, valued at $9 billion, as well as Vibecode, Rork, and a0.dev. Rork ceased iOS operations, while a0.dev abandoned the Apple platform altogether.

Apple cited App Store Review Guideline 2.5.2, which prohibits apps from downloading, installing, or executing code that alters their functionality. They claimed this rule had always existed and was not specifically targeting vibe coding. Apple offered specific compromises: Replit could change its app previews to open in an external browser, while Vibecode had to remove its capability to generate software for Apple devices.

The Impact of Increased Submissions

It’s important to note that Apple was targeting a specific behavior—generating and executing code within an app, which allows applications to bypass the review process. Submitting iOS applications written with tools like Cursor or Claude Code followed a different path and was not affected by this crackdown. However, the surge in application submissions due to vibe coding also slowed down the review process, with developers reporting wait times extending from less than a day to a week.

Two weeks later, the situation escalated. A vibe coding app called Anything was removed from the App Store. Launched in September with $11 million in funding and a valuation of $100 million, Anything had enabled users to publish thousands of App Store applications. Despite the developers submitting a compliant update to open app previews in a browser, Apple rejected the update and subsequently removed the app entirely.

The Old Rule’s New Impact

This rule, long dormant, rarely triggered before because few could “generate apps within an app.” AI has changed that. Vibe coding allows anyone to create runnable software on their phones, awakening a previously dormant rule. The rule itself hasn’t changed; rather, technology has enabled more people to cross this line, with Apple having full discretion over when and how to enforce it.

This isn’t the first time Apple has restricted third-party innovation using similar logic. The case of WeChat mini-programs serves as a precedent. Mini-programs allowed third-party functions to operate within WeChat, bypassing the App Store’s review and revenue-sharing system. Apple delayed WeChat updates for years until both parties reached an agreement, with Apple taking a 15% commission from payments within mini-programs. The current situation for vibe coding apps mirrors that of WeChat.

The Surge in App Submissions

Moreover, the surge in app submissions due to vibe coding has strained Apple’s review system. Data shows that U.S. iOS app releases grew by 56% year-over-year in December and another 54.8% in January, marking the fastest growth in four years. Forrester analysts suggest that Apple cannot simply refuse submissions to resolve this issue; as AI accelerates app creation, Apple needs to evolve from manual reviews to large-scale curation.

Apple’s Double Standards

Adding to the irony is Apple’s own actions. In the same week it cracked down on third-party vibe coding apps, Apple integrated AI programming agents from OpenAI and Anthropic into Xcode 26.3. Developers can use natural language to generate code, build apps, and run tests within Apple’s tools, then go through the standard App Store review process.

Mana’s founder noted, “Vibe coding in Apple’s own tools is called ‘innovation,’ while in third-party apps, it’s deemed ‘violating rules.’” Rabbit’s founder, Lu Cheng, stated more bluntly that Apple is particularly opposed to others creating ‘apps that generate apps.’ He believes this poses a risk, as superior products could threaten Apple’s own offerings, like Siri.

The logic of the rules is clear: you can build on iOS, but you cannot run what you build on iOS. To put it more plainly, you can use AI to write code, but you must use Apple’s tools, follow Apple’s review process, and pay Apple’s fees.

Developer Community Reactions

The developer community is divided on this issue, but the opposition to Apple is noticeably stronger. Some support Apple, arguing that an app capable of mass-producing apps essentially serves as an unregulated backdoor for sideloading, posing security risks. However, many developers feel that software should be more user-friendly, allowing ordinary people to describe their needs and receive customized tools, which should be the direction of technological progress.

Apple’s security concerns are real, as are its commercial motivations, both pointing in the same direction. Notably, similar vibe coding applications run smoothly on Android, with Rork and Replit facing no such restrictions on Google Play.

Navigating New Paths

After being stifled by Apple, many entrepreneurs began to pivot. The Mana team eliminated all ties to the iOS system. Their current plan is to pursue a web app route similar to Replit. The founder described their mindset during this pivot: “If you forcefully do the wrong thing right, it will be even scarier.”

Other developers have turned to Progressive Web Apps (PWAs), moving their products to browsers to completely bypass the App Store. Some are taking a compliant route by embedding on-device models directly into apps, allowing AI capabilities to be integrated within the application rather than dynamically generating code, which has been successful in getting approved.

Replit chose to compromise, agreeing to open generated applications in external browsers. However, Anything’s experience shows that compromise may not always be effective.

Currently, Apple’s red line appears to be drawn at whether generated code runs within the app. Tools that help users write code but do not execute it within the app (like Vercel’s v0) are temporarily safe, while those that run generated content directly in an app’s web view face repercussions. However, this line is not clearly defined. In the Chinese market, Ant Group’s “Flash App” and Macaron AI’s mini-app also generate and run interactive content within apps but have not faced restrictions. Analysts suggest that applications like Canva, which can create interactive content using AI, may also face similar scrutiny in the future. Where this red line is drawn remains uncertain, even to Apple.

Conclusion

Mana’s founder stated that the future of vibe coding on mobile is essentially set: “That’s it; there probably won’t be any changes.” He believes this field will bifurcate into two ends: entertainment mini-games and practical life tools, with system-level AI assistants like Xiao Ai covering most immediate needs. Apple consuming this space is merely a matter of time.

However, there are variables. The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) has already forced Apple to open third-party app stores and sideloading in Europe. If developers of vibe coding applications choose to pressure regulators, the story may not end here.

In three months, pursuing three different directions, each time achieving success only to be thwarted by platform rules, Mana’s experience is not unique. Whether a small early-stage team or a $9 billion industry giant, the situation remains the same in the face of Apple’s rules. The founder’s conclusion is most accurate: “Both times we succeeded, only to find that our fate was not in our hands.”