On: Techniques used by developers to bypass App Store ...

[ethbr1]

The static analysis should trigger "Explain why you're doing this" as a criteria for approval.

But that would probably require some actual human code review, which costs $$s.

Apple could offload that to the developer in the form of review surcharges.

[Retric → ethbr1]

No need for human review, they can just reject anything suspicious.

[ethbr1 → Retric]

I feel like "not suspicious" would eventually become an impossible bar.

You'd find a code pattern that was being used, and declare it suspicious.

Rinse and repeat, as people are still going to try getting around the rules.

Eventually you're left with some weird subset of a subset of a language that's legal to write iOS apps in.

[Retric → ethbr1]

In this case suspicious code is anything that achieves a fairly narrow subset of possible outcomes so I doubt it would come up much.

It’s a common fallacy to assume infinite worlds result in every possible world but 1, 10, 100, … is an infinite series but is only covering ~0% of possibilities.

[UncleMeat → ethbr1]

Okay, but this is now a policy and procedure choice. The original claims were that these are undetectable.