> I'm curious how serious they intend to be about the NDA-ish section

These terms are standard for all the Apple developer programs. In practice, they have been largely unenforced due to the definition they use for Confidential Information:

> Information that otherwise would be deemed Confidential Information but (a) is generally and legitimately available to the public through no fault or breach of yours, (b) is generally made available to the public by Apple, (c) is independently developed by you without the use of any Confidential Information, (d) was rightfully obtained from a third party who had the right to transfer or disclose it to you without limitation, or (e) any third party software and/or documentation provided to you by Apple and accompanied by licensing terms that do not impose confidentiality obligations on the use or disclosure of such software and/or documentation will not be considered Confidential Information under this Agreement.

Clause (a) generally protects anything interesting to talk about, because all the rumor mill sites have full run-downs within a few hours of release. Very rare and circumstantial cases aside[1], publishing the contents of pre-release software on such sites has been considered well within legitimate public interest.

[1]: The most recent case I can think of where Apple was able to go after a rumor mill site for divulging trade secrets (and, more importantly, have it stick) was the when they got Think Secret to shut down in a settlement related to its leaking of the original Mac mini.

Yea, I wish that Tim Cook would review the secrecy at Apple and look at what part of it is really needed.

Pretty sure it will be hidden in the EULA or TOS.