Accidental Developers Pose Two-Way Risk for Apple's App Store

A colleague was building a financial model in Excel. He asked Microsoft Copilot to solve a problem. The answer looked wrong. When he asked Copilot to explain its reasoning, the tool spat out Python code. My colleague had never written a line of Python before. He had no interest in becoming a developer. At that moment he became one, whether he knew it or not.

Forrester calls these people “accidental developers.” AI coding agents from OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic now handle multiple phases of the software development lifecycle in a single conversation. The people using them often do not know they are writing code. The tools install packages, configure runtimes, and deploy applications. The user just types a request.

Apple sits at the intersection of this shift. The App Store ecosystem depends on professional developers who follow strict review guidelines. Accidental developers ship code they do not fully understand. That code rarely undergoes the same security review, testing, or planning that traditional SDLC demands. The result is a growing surface area for bugs, data leaks, and compliance failures.

Apple’s Services revenue – about $85 billion annually – leans heavily on App Store commissions and developer tools. If accidental developers flood the store with poorly vetted apps, Apple faces a choice. It can accept a moderation nightmare or tighten submission rules. Tighter rules risk alienating the very creators driving subscription and in-app purchase growth.

The security angle is concrete. The Forrester post notes that accidental developers rarely review generated code. When they do, they often do not understand it. Some ask the same AI to test its own output – a practice that would be frowned upon with human engineers. Delivery introduces another blind spot. An AI might install packages and container runtimes locally that the developer never configured, creating a mismatch when the app moves to the cloud. Apple’s review team would catch some of these issues. Not all. The cost of additional manual review cuts directly into Services margins.

The counterargument is that easier development expands the total addressable market. More people building apps means more apps competing for users, which could increase overall App Store transaction volume. The quality risk is real. A wave of buggy or insecure apps could damage Apple’s brand trust. That risk matters especially as regulators in Europe and the U.S. scrutinize app store policies.

Forrester’s research director, who wrote the original blog, argues that the onus falls on model creators and users to collaborate on secure software. That is a polite way of saying the tools themselves need guardrails. Microsoft, Google, and OpenAI are racing to add safety checks. Those guardrails are only as good as the underlying model. A sufficiently creative prompt can circumvent them.

Apple’s own generative AI efforts place it in the same boat. The company is rumored to be building a code generation tool within Xcode. It needs to ship a developer assistant that empowers professionals without creating more accidental developers. That balance is fragile. WWDC 2025 will be the first major test of Apple’s approach.

The smart read for investors is not to panic. Apple’s installed base, brand loyalty, and hardware margins give it room to absorb rising App Store moderation costs. The risk to Services growth is real. If Apple loses developer trust – or faces a high-profile security incident caused by AI-generated code – the Services multiple could compress.

Watch two signals. Apple’s commentary on developer tooling during the next earnings call will show intent. Any changes to App Store review timelines or rejection rates will show action. A spike in rejections would indicate the company is already tightening the screws. That would be a near-term revenue headwind and a long-term quality bet.