Yes, it is what the AI is supposed to do when given a data set that is too small for training and a general creativity-free prompt.
The AI system generated a weather app that looked like Apple's because the Apple weather app's UI is one instance of a bunch of almost indistinguishable weather UIs. if humans don't show any variability or creativity in creating a weather app, why would you expect an AI, trained on human knowledge to do any better?
If AI has no creativity then it shouldn't be able to compete in the slightest with actual humans, having creativity is such a fundamental aspect of creation that you would think that something that doesn't have it shouldn't even be comparable, yet many are worried.
Anyone who cares about public health would be worried that so many people eat slop from McDonald's. But if McDonald's food is bad and unhealthy, it shouldn't be able to compete in the slightest with real food.
Food from McDonald's is as real as healthy food, it's food, there's nothing fundamentally different, just lower quality, if that's the point, then you're saying there's also nothing fundamentally different from stuff created by humans or by an AI, just lower quality.
We'd be a healthier society if the early days of ultra processed food had been met with skepticism instead of prostration to corporations changing the nature of food for profit.
This is likely it. Had it been some small company, they'd probably take the Microsoft AI chief approach and claim it's fair use, open-access internet, etc. Apple OTOH are litigious.
Information about our world is fundamental to create something recognizable for humans, otherwise it would be just noise, that doesn't mean you just copy the interface of the Apple Meteo app.