Reminds me of politicians and public figures saying they got "hacked" after doing/posting something stupid and getting backlash for it. I guess "AI did it" is the new iteration on that.

The solution is clear: yes we use AI, and we're okay with it.

There's no way Claude/AI recreated another persons app exactly, with the same name and branding, without being told to do so in some way. I just don't believe it.

And him not using it and calling out AI is just him covering his ass

Think about all of the cases that don't come out. Everyone hates AI, yet everyone is using AI.

I refuse to believe nearly 100% of game developers aren't using AI, but how many put the tag of shame on the Steam store page?

It's a very strange situation.

The already embattled Fender CEO said the other day that he plans for Fender to be at the "forefront" of AI, and that covering others' songs was "analogue AI".

The simple truth of the matter is that contempt for your customers is now normal. I expect this from Fender, now; they are utterly without soul.

But D'Addario are really one of the most analogue companies ever and they are still family-owned; they should have understood the magnitude of this problem right at the beginning and just apologised.

At least one of my three guitars will likely continue to have their PB strings, probably, because they still sound the best on my cheap Weissenborn clone.

But it is very disappointing and it leaves a bad taste. Perhaps I will revisit Rotosounds (wound in a factory very near where I grew up) for my PBs. The UK also has Newtone strings so I really have no reason to continue to support D'Addario (though the low-tension Aloha set I really like for the Weissenborn copy that lets me have a 15 on the high D is always backordered).

Jeeeeezus. It's lies all the way down. Did we ever arrive at a true statement from them or is that where they left it?

The irony is how unnecessary it was. They could've just said, yeah you're right, we used AI. This is a level of lying you reserve for covering up a murder or something. Maybe they're just worried (and they're right to be worried) that it's easier to make music with AI than with their strings.

> The worker claimed it was "his first time using AI" and "he didn't know"

This is not the defense they think it is.. If your mechanic rotates your tires and improperly torques the lug bolts "it was my first time using a torque wrench" isn't excusable. It's good to experiment and learn new things. It's not good to throw your little self-study project out into the world with your employer's name behind it and present it as production worthy material.

It's an easy "out" for those without the self-respect to admit when they do wrong.

It's like "The computer did it" from the 80's and 90's. Blame the tool for the operator usage.

It's pathetic.

People online post timelapses for their AI generated artwork, that are also AI generated.

What bothers me about the D'Addario thing is that it never crossed the mind of that employee or the company what they're doing was wrong.

Their customers are musicians. They want to hear what the strings sound like in a demo. What they did was not just dishonest, it's contrary to literally everything their customers do.

Whoever did it has no sense and shouldn't be working in that business. Full stop.

I say this as a D'Addario customer of 20+ years that will never buy their strings again.

[dead]

And this, friends, is why blogs are the source of so much disinformation.

They look professional, the writers seem smart, and yet they will say the dumbest shit.

Shame on you Gruber. Not cool.

EDIT: HEH. I guess Gruber still has a lot of fans on HN.

In app categories that bring a lot of low-effort submissions and clones, Apple requires new submissions to bring something new to the table.

Before these requirements the app store was filling up with thousands of flashlight apps, todo lists, and other simple apps that people would build (or clone) to get something into the app store.

If you read the related articles you'd see the App Store has decided there are enough of these types of apps and they don't accept any more unless they're noticeably different

They simply do not allow new astrology apps. They consider the market segment saturated.

That was already submitted and discussed [0], there's a reason I submitted this response by the author.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49228166

I did not look into the details myself, but here are the links to the previous post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49228166

I think "night vision" is different from dark mode. It's meant to prevent your eyes from adjusting to the light - so you can still see the stars - rather than just being easy to look at.

It's so that you don't lose your dark adaptation. See: https://www.nps.gov/articles/dark-adaptation-of-the-human-ey...

A few years ago there were horoscope apps with a 3-day free trial, then pay per week subscriptions, that had tens of thousands of suspicious 5 star reviews.

Some of them even made it into the top 20 grossing apps on the store.

All the reviews with text would complain about accidentally subscribing.

Apple was earning a 30% commission on those subscriptions.

Only new submissions seem to be banned because Apple says there are too many. Clearly there are loads if you search the App Store. Gruber quotes and I re-quote:

> Certain kinds of apps, such as dating, flashlight, sound effects, wallpaper, simple timers, and fortune telling, are well established on the App Store and we will not accept new submissions unless they offer a meaningfully different or improved experience. We may remove these apps from the App Store going forward if they are not updated, improved, or do not attract customers. Other kinds of apps, such as drinking games, Kama Sutra, fart, and burp apps, are mediocre, low-quality, or low-effort and do not add value to the App Store.

The same reason apple could reasonably block people from selling anything with an easily falsifiable claim: misleading consumers is bad, and apps that are misleading aren’t allowed. That already exists.

Telling people you can tell them their future based on the stars is demonstrably misleading lol.

> Isn't this exactly the kind of discrimination against fields of endeavour that would make a slam-dunk case for any antitrust enforcement?

No.

They don’t prohibit them.

There are categories of app that already have 100 trillion low effort copy-paste slop apps.

In those categories, Apple applies a more stringent “must demonstrate some real differentiation” criteria. They also prune those categories of existing apps more aggressively.

It’s fair to wonder what counts, and how uniformly they apply it, but the motivation is not, “no astrology apps.”

This guy pumped out slop for a high-slop category. It got rejected. That’s where it started.

All the bullshit and lies from everyone snowballed from that.

If I understand the story correctly, it's even worse than "pivoted to astronomy". He used Claude to "accidentally" (doubtful) copy an existing astronomy app, bugs and all. It's like a pile of dishonesty upon dishonesty.

> David Pierce, at The Verge, put it on a very short list of iOS-exclusive indie apps that keep him from switching to Android.

You are misattributing a quote.