In the Age of AI Development, Old Apps May Become a New Kind of Digital Asset

AI-assisted programming has spread rapidly in recent years, sharply lowering the technical barriers to building an app. Work that once took a programmer several months can now, with AI's help, produce a working application in days or even less. More people without a traditional software development background are also beginning to build and release apps independently.

One natural consequence is that large numbers of new applications are arriving at Apple's App Store, putting fresh pressure on app review.

Apple has already been reviewing millions of app submissions a year. In 2025, the total was approximately 9.1 million, up 17% from around 7.77 million in 2024. These figures include new apps, version updates and resubmissions; they do not all represent first-time app releases. As AI-assisted development has become more widespread in 2026, submission volumes have continued to attract attention. Some developers have reported significantly longer review waits, sometimes stretching to several weeks.

This raises an interesting question. If building an app becomes easier while admission to the App Store becomes more tightly managed, might older apps, developed and listed before AI became widespread, acquire a new kind of value?

The App Store's Problem Goes Beyond Review Capacity

From a technical perspective, Apple does not necessarily face an operating cost that rises in direct proportion to the number of apps. The marginal cost of storing and distributing one additional application, along with other infrastructure demands, may be quite limited. Review requires resources, but automation and AI can also increase processing capacity.

The more significant concern is the overall quality of the App Store.

As development barriers fall, many developers may use similar AI tools to address similar product requirements, producing applications with very similar features and interfaces. Established categories such as to-do lists, diaries, calculators, English learning, photo management and AI chat may see a steady stream of lookalike products.

Such competition is not necessarily harmful. Even when features are similar, a new product may outperform an older one on price, reliability, ease of use or service quality. But when large numbers of new apps simply reproduce existing functionality without meaningful improvements, they increase the effort users must spend searching and choosing. They can also make worthwhile new products harder to discover.

Apple clearly has reasons to manage this trend. Section 4.3 of its App Store Review Guidelines already restricts duplicate apps and products that lack meaningful differentiation.

Even if Apple eventually has enough technical capacity to review every submission quickly, that would not mean it would admit every application meeting basic technical requirements. It would still need to consider product duplication, user experience and the quality of the wider app ecosystem.

App review therefore serves two purposes. It checks technical quality, safety and compliance, while also giving the platform a way to manage the supply of applications.

Older Apps Already on the Store Are in a Different Position

I began developing Apple applications a long time ago. I worked through the period of traditional software development, sometimes jokingly described today as the era of building apps “the old-fashioned way”.

Back then, building an app meant analysing requirements, designing the architecture, writing code, debugging and handling operating system compatibility yourself, before dealing with certificate signing, submission and review. The whole process demanded substantial time and specialist knowledge.

Over the years, I have developed applications in education, social networking, utilities and games, across platforms including iOS and macOS. I have also accumulated a collection of apps that have been on the store for many years.

While submitting updates recently, I noticed that new versions of some older apps were still being reviewed very quickly, even as reports of longer waits for new apps were becoming more common.

Of course, this does not establish that Apple formally gives older apps priority. Reviewing an existing app's update differs in complexity from reviewing a first release. Older apps have a review history, and Apple may already know something about their core functions and operation. A new application requires a more comprehensive examination.

Nevertheless, from a developer's practical perspective, the difference may have economic significance.

An app that has been on the store for years possesses more than source code and features. It has an established Bundle ID, an App Store product page, a version history and, potentially, accumulated users, ratings and reviews.

These may once have seemed like ordinary by-products of operating an app. But if the cost of developing new applications falls while the difficulty of entering the App Store potentially rises, an existing listing and its history may acquire a new kind of value.

The “Shell Value” of an Old App

This brings to mind the value of listed-company shells in capital markets.

A listed company's value normally comes from its business, assets, revenue and profit. In a market where admission to a stock exchange is tightly restricted, however, even a poorly performing company may command additional value simply because it is already listed.

Could something similar happen with older apps?

Consider a utility app developed ten years ago that now generates almost no revenue and has very few users. Judged by its current business performance, it may have little commercial value.

Yet it remains a complete product that has passed Apple's review and holds an established place on the store. If another developer can acquire it and use AI to rebuild and improve it while retaining its original purpose, an older application with little apparent value may gain a new lease of life.

AI-assisted development is particularly relevant because it has substantially reduced the cost of refactoring old code and adding new features. An application that became outdated through lack of maintenance resources may now be modernised with a relatively modest investment.

The value of an older app could therefore include its existing code and functionality, its users and product history, and the option to continue developing and operating it in the future.

The last of these is especially worth examining.

If admission becomes increasingly difficult for new apps while updates to older ones remain relatively straightforward, an established App Store listing may carry a form of “admission premium”.

That value is not identical to the application's current income. Even an app with little operating revenue might attract another developer because it offers a way to continue running and developing an existing product.

However, Apple's willingness to permit app transfers does not mean developers can buy an empty shell and replace it at will with an entirely unrelated product. Significant functional changes still require review. An older app's history does not exempt it from that process.

How far this “shell value” can become a market asset in its own right therefore remains uncertain.

AI May Reactivate Assets Built the Old-Fashioned Way

There is another interesting change here.

AI-assisted development is usually seen as especially advantageous to newcomers because it lowers the technical barriers to entering the software industry. From another perspective, it may also give new advantages to experienced developers who have accumulated software assets over many years.

An independent developer may have a dozen or even several dozen applications, without enough time to maintain and upgrade them all. Each has its own code, architecture and legacy problems, and rebuilding can be expensive.

AI can now help developers understand old code, migrate frameworks, fix compatibility problems, generate tests and implement new features. An upgrade that once required months of work may become much easier to undertake.

Development work accumulated ten or even several decades ago may thus amount to more than a collection of increasingly outdated source code. It may become a portfolio of digital assets that can be developed and operated again.

Of course, age alone does not make an app valuable. Applications that no longer meet a market need, suffer from serious technical problems or persistently fail to meet platform requirements will not automatically appreciate because they were listed early. Apple may also remove apps that have gone unmaintained for too long.

The apps worth examining are those that still have a sensible product purpose, complete technical assets and a realistic prospect of continued operation.

For people who have spent years developing Apple applications, it may be time to reassess what they have accumulated.

Could Older Apps Support a New Trading Market?

Apple already provides a formal App Transfer mechanism, allowing eligible applications to move between developer accounts while retaining their existing identity and some historical assets.

Older apps therefore already have a degree of institutional transferability.

Markets such as Flippa and AppAcquire already exist for buying and selling applications. Transactions are mainly assessed on revenue, profit, user numbers, code and business potential. Some applications with little or no revenue are also offered for sale.

But a listing does not establish that a sale has occurred. Still less does it prove that buyers are already paying an additional premium for an older app's store listing alone.

If the supply of new apps continues to grow, Apple raises its admission standards, and older apps can gain renewed business value through legitimate updates and improvements, a market segment devoted to acquiring, renovating and reusing existing applications may gradually emerge.

Such a market might trade more than profitable apps. It could also include completed, listed products that were subsequently left idle because their developers lacked the resources to maintain them.

Whether a trading platform itself could make money is a separate question. Buyers and sellers may meet through a platform and then complete a deal privately. Transaction values may also be too small to cover verification, escrow and service costs. The existence of market demand and the profitability of operating a marketplace therefore require separate examination.

For now, there is a practical basis for trading older app assets. Whether “shell value” can become an independent factor in their price still needs to be demonstrated by actual transaction data.

Reconsidering What Years of Software Development Have Built

The changes brought by AI may extend well beyond greater development efficiency.

Building an app once required a substantial investment of technical labour. Now the ability to implement software is spreading rapidly, and the cost of generating code keeps falling. An application's value may consequently depend more on whether it meets a real need, can attract users and sustain its operation, and can enter and remain within a mature platform ecosystem.

This has prompted me to look again at applications I developed many years ago.

Some may be outdated; others may need to be rebuilt entirely. Some have few users but still retain a complete product identity and listing history. Once, they might simply have been old projects waiting for maintenance. Now, they may have new possibilities for reuse.

Developing apps the old-fashioned way left behind more than code. It also created product assets through the practical work of development, review, publication and long-term maintenance.

As AI makes producing new software easier, those assets accumulated years ago may acquire a value that was previously less apparent.

Whether that value will eventually support a mature trading market remains to be tested by time and evidence. But it already suggests a possibility worth watching: AI lowers the cost of creating new apps and may also increase the value of putting some older app assets back to use.