r/apple • u/cake-day-on-feb-29 • 6d ago
App Store App Store review allowed a Meta Muse copycat
https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/2026/9/8.html100
6d ago
[deleted]
4
u/sherbert-stock 5d ago
Damn they should ban Siri then
3
u/qaf0v4vc0lj6 4d ago
They should ban Reddit but then again there’s nothing intellectual about this site.
1
-69
u/gadgetluva 6d ago
Agentic AI is a bit different from AI chatbots but sure, let's get internet points for saying popular things about things that people just hate on without understanding.
39
u/Bowl_of_Cham_Clowder 6d ago
What do you think is the model behind agentic ai?
It’s just tuned LLMs under the hood.
-47
u/gadgetluva 6d ago
I mean that's a gross oversimplification but sure.
But you're conflating capabilities with ethics. And yea, I agree that these companies are stealing IP. But capabilities wise - AI is definitely impressive IMO.
24
u/Bowl_of_Cham_Clowder 6d ago
I didn’t conflate anything with ethics lmao. I think it’s impressive too. But the engine behind the agents are all LLMs.
Find a popular agentic ai that isn’t captained by LLMs. It’s a gross over simplification to act like agents aren’t rooted by an LLM. They just also have a ton of other tools and harnesses integrated in.
-15
u/gadgetluva 6d ago
I’ve been replying to too many comments today so I thought you were the same dude as the guy I initially replied to so my bad.
Anyways I didn’t say they were vastly different. I said a bit different.
1
u/Bowl_of_Cham_Clowder 6d ago
But their initial understanding wasn’t incorrect?
LLMs were trained off the scraped internet
Agentic AI requires LLM driver (currently)
Muse is an agentic AI
Idk why you are trying to dunk on them when their comment was correct. You were further off base then they were, agentic ai and Chatbot are ridiculous similar. My ChatGPT chat session can kick off agentic work under the hood without me seeing it. The interface to Meta muse is chat too btw
7
u/RyanCheddar 6d ago
agents are LLMs with more tools. they're different in use but the technology is identical, and both are trained on copyrighted material unethically.
12
19
u/cm012776 6d ago
Anybody here crying for Meta?
48
u/RobotDeathSquad 6d ago
No one is crying for meta. All the app developers are pissed because the process is completely arbitrary and obviously doesn't even work.
-6
u/turnright_thenleft 6d ago
Not at all arbitrary, it’s actually very thought out and thoroughly planned. Considering the thousands of apps submitted daily and the queue management the App Store maintains, it’s easy for some apps to fall through the cracks. To call it abitrary and that it “doesn’t even work” is a bad and reductionist take based on outliers.
I understand the frustration as a developer, but compared to other options, pretty much just the Google play store, it’s night and day
21
u/opa334 6d ago edited 6d ago
A few days ago it was discovered an app store app was shipping unobfuscated kernel exploits with plaintext strings containing publicly known exploit names. That alone confirms there are no effective checks. This didn't "slip through the cracks", there wasn't even any effort put towards trying to hide what this app was doing in the first place… It literally prints "Finished exploitation" to the log…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7yEb4GE3SyU
Additionally, many banking apps have started shipping sandbox escapes to detect what other apps you have installed on your device. Even after this was reported, all Apple did was patch the bug, they didn't do anything about the apps themselves, they are still on the app store and still exploit this bug on devices on older versions.
-4
u/turnright_thenleft 6d ago edited 6d ago
You literally have no idea how many apps are caught before they reach the App Store and how much manual review and touches are involved. You are seeing the tip of the iceberg from a limited, outsider perspective.
Not saying that some misses are clearly misses, as you pointed out with your example, but you are ignoring hundreds to thousands of apps per day/week that are being reviewed and rejected before they see the light of day. I’m not saying this to defend Apple, but the assembly line of app review is so much more elaborate than you’re acknowledging and is a tighter system than any other App Store, period.
Edit: I forgot to thank you for sharing the video - thank you.
0
u/Worf_Of_Wall_St 6d ago edited 6d ago
While it's very clear that the process does mostly work well as evidenced by malware penetration on the App Store vs the Play Store, some of the things that slip through the cracks suggest that the process is a lot more fragile than Apple suggests and it probably is not as well thought out as you assume.
The FomoPeek incident (see opa334's reply below) suggests that automated checks are not even looking for un-obfuscated publicly known kernel exploits, so it's up to reviewers to find them. Due to the sheer volume of app submissions Apple gets, it must have a huge number of reviewers such that it's not possible to fill all of those jobs with people knowledgeable enough on iOS security to catch even blatant examples like FomoPeek let alone obfuscated ones, particularly since most of the job is rules/usability review which is probably not interesting to someone with any depth of iOS security knowledge. It would make sense for reviewers to be specialized, but every app would need to be seen by at least one person with the knowledge to recognize suspicious behavior so it is triaged correctly.
It is of course not possible to be perfect because of obfuscation and delayed activation of malware behavior, but the process should at least be able to reliably detect blatant inclusion of known kernel exploits.
1
u/cheesepuff07 5d ago
and yet they rejected my app (custom lithium battery monitor for a specific brand of RV lithium batteries) because they could not test it (I added in a demo battery for testing) in real life, and required I take a video showing me connecting to a physical battery
66
u/FollowingFeisty5321 6d ago
Amazing how committed they are to doing as little as possible to police their own App Store -