Apple blocks AppGrid update, saying its interface is too similar to Launchpad

App review clash over a recreated macOS classic

It has been reported that Apple has blocked updates for AppGrid, a third‑party macOS app that recreates the classic Launchpad (启动台) grid interface, on the grounds that its appearance is “too similar” to the original Launchpad. The story was first covered by 9to5Mac and reported in China by IT Home (IT之家). Launchpad — Apple’s full‑screen, icon‑grid app browser akin to the iPhone home screen — is familiar to many macOS users. Why, then, is copying it a problem?

A vacuum, a clone and a quick rise

Reportedly, the controversy stems from Apple’s recent system change: the Launchpad feature was removed in a recent macOS update codenamed “Tahoe,” prompting users to seek replacements. Developer Attila Miklosi quickly released AppGrid, which closely replicates the grid app‑launching experience. The app became popular fast for delivering the familiar workflow that users missed. But three months after launch, Miklosi says Apple cut off his ability to push updates — not by delisting the app, but by locking it into a so‑called “zombie state.”

The developer’s complaint and Apple’s offer

Miklosi says the app remains on the App Store and Apple continues to collect its standard 30% share of sales, while he is prevented from patching bugs, responding to competitors, or adding requested features. It has been reported that Apple offered a compromise: make major visual changes to AppGrid and Apple would restore update rights. The developer refused, arguing thousands of paying users bought AppGrid specifically for the original Launchpad‑like look. He has since distributed a new version outside the App Store.

Broader questions about policy and platform power

The episode highlights tensions in Apple’s App Review rules: guidelines forbid apps that replicate “existing” Apple products or interfaces, but what counts as “existing” when Apple has removed a native feature? Reportedly, blogger Michael Tsai and others say this exposes a logic gap in the policy. The case also touches on bigger debates — platform gatekeeping, revenue share, and the limits of creative fidelity to system UI — and will be closely watched by macOS developers in China and worldwide. Who decides whether a beloved interface is free to be recreated: the original platform owner, or the users who still want it?