alt Hacker News>In fact, the trend is the opposite direction - the server sending the mobile apps their UIs. That way you can roll out new updates, features, and experiments without even deploying a new version
Is that allowed by app stores? Doesn’t it negate the walled gardens if you can effectively treat the app as a mini browser that executes arbitrary code ?
Replies
Expo is the most popular React Native framework and markets remote updates as a feature and highlights that it lets you skip App Review update and Apple hasn't stopped them (Expo updates not exactly server-side mobile UI but it's similar idea).
My previous workplace did this.
What app stores don't like is you reinventing javascript i.e shipping your own VM. What they don't mind is you reinventing html and css.
So it is common for servers today to send mobile apps
{"Elementtype": "bottom_sheet_34", "fg_color": "red",..., "actions": {"tap": "whatever"}, ... }
This is what the GP is talking about.
It covers a surprising number of usecases, especially since many actions can be simply represented using '<a href>' equivalents -- deeplinks. With lotties, even animations are now server controlled. However, more dynamic actions are still client-controlled and need app updates.
Additionally, any new initiative , think new feature, or think temporary page for say valentine's day, is all done with webviews. I'm not clued in on the review process for this.
Nevertheless, if your app is big enough then almost every rule above is waived for you and the review process is moot, since once you become popular the platform becomes your customer as much as you are theirs. For example, tiktok ships a VM and obfuscated bytecode for that VM to hinder reverse engineering (and of course, hide stuff)
It's not really allowed but they aren't policing it, so, the technique ("code push") continuously grows.