A 9to5Mac investigation has uncovered more than 60 apps that behave exactly as depicted in their App Store screenshots when accessed from virtually anywhere in the world, except Brazil.
When opened from a Brazilian IP address, the same apps instead reveal online betting platforms […]
Most of the apps are published by developer accounts with only a single App Store listing. Many of the developer names appear to be common in Vietnam and other countries, rather than Brazil.
A timely example of the shenanigans developers pull to circumvent App Review.
Digging deeper, 9to5Mac found a public GitHub repository containing instructions for a Cursor agent to create simple, vibe-coded apps that serve as fronts for the betting platforms.
Of course AI has a role to play, here. It wouldn’t be a 2026 tech story without it. (Cursor, you may recall, was recently acquired by Elon Musk’s SpaceXAI/Twitter/Grok chimera.)
Apple should be doing more to catch these malfeasant developers (and perhaps issue them permanent bans). I believe they have the tools and resources to do a much more thorough screening of both developers and apps, but have decided not to do so (or, to be charitable, have decided not to do so yet)—possibly out of fear of being seen as swinging its ban hammer too enthusiastically.
I am increasingly of the opinion that Apple has painted itself into a corner by refusing to allow alternative app stores. Having just the one place where most developers can sell their apps forces Apple to tread an extremely fine line between “enforcing its rules” and “abusing its control.” The somehow still ongoing Epic lawsuit is an example of that tension.
If Apple embraced alternative app stores, it could be as strict as it wanted with its own App Store, while pointing anyone it denies entry to the alternatives. It could ban any developer from its App Store without facing the wrath of regulators (or the developer community).
In fact, I think Apple should have its own “alternative app store.” Apple should split its App Store in two: one is the current “we accept everything within reason and guidelines” model: follow the rules and we let you in. The second would be modeled after Apple Arcade: a highly curated, invite-only, no-BS storefront. Only the most thoroughly vetted developers and highest quality apps get into this second App Store—the Mac-Ass-iest of Mac-Assed apps, for example (and whatever you’d call the iOS equivalent).
Think of it like this: The current App Store is like your city’s only nightclub. If you dress nicely, act politely, and don’t give off sketchy vibes, they let you in. If you later cause a ruckus while inside, they toss you out the door. Maybe they let you back in if you get your shit together, maybe it’s a permanent ban.
The new App Store would be Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s wedding at Madison Square Garden: a meticulously selected, tightly scoped, NDA-gated invite list. It doesn’t matter how important or famous you are, if you’re not on the list, you’re not getting in. You can party at the nightclub.
(If you’d prefer less pop-culture example, imagine your local Safeway/Albertson’s versus Whole Foods.)
With a (truly) curated App Store, Apple could massively step up its vetting process for developers and apps, and wield its ban hammer as injudiciously as it feels necessary, while exhibiting a comparatively lighter touch for the regular store. Customers can shop the curated store with increased confidence in the quality while still having access to millions of apps.