Apple tells emulator developers it's OK with retro games – not entire OSes A pair of developers have come away from encounters with Apple's latest rules regarding video game emulators in its App Store and concluded the iGiant is not okay with software that emulates a whole operating system. The developers of DOS emulator iDOS and multi-OS emulator UTM both posted about Apple rejecting their wares …
NSFW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFGDPwsTX34 - Billy Connolly: Demands
As far as I can tell from the guidelines, if you offer downloadable content you're supposed to provide an inventory of the possible downloads - which means you can't offer end users the ability to download software of their choice.
A cynic might wonder whether this had more to do with revenue than "security". Let people run whatever software they like on their own devices and they'll expect to be able to install free stuff which Apple can't heavily tax. Restrict them to a small list and encourage developers to offer them via "in-app purchases" and you have a nice little earner.
Obfuscate this with some legally meaningless terminology like "retro games" (it's roughly equivalent to telling developers they can offer green software but not yellow) and that should keep those pesky EU regulators off their backs for at least 15 seconds.
I believe it was Noam Chomsky who opined te following in his "The Common Good" (but I could be wrong):
> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
What we're seeing is that exact same thing: the acceptable opinion is "you buy things through the app store where we collect 30% just because we can" and the lively debate is "but you can sell almost anything there".
What we're seeing is that exact same thing: the acceptable opinion is "you buy things through the app store where we collect 30% just because we can" and the lively debate is "but you can sell almost anything there".
You just banged that into your keyboard without thinking, didn't you? Which app store were you referring to? All of them?
They. Aren’t. Apple do not believe that a sandbox can provide the security requested. Any sandbox.
How many times does this need to be said? It’s *EU Fandroids* who believe in “the power of the sandbox”. Every sensible consumer, Apple itself, and people with any experience of proper IT security *including the official and semi-public advice of our security services*, considers that to be ludicrous security practice.
If you are relying on your sandbox to protect you, any sandbox, you’ve already lost the battle. That’s not restricted to Apple. Apple’s defense in depth is to restrict installations to the App Store. That *plus* sandbox has proved in practice to be sufficient.
Forget Apple, I bet your *company’s IT policy* is not to allow users as admin. In many large companies, users aren’t allowed to install anything on their computers other than “company approved programs”. Does that company say “oh, of course unless you install a sandbox on your computer, in which case feel free to install anything you like”? No. It doesn’t.
All Apple users are demanding, is the right to have an IT security policy enforced on the *device they own*. And since they are just consumers at home, they want to outsource “having an IT department check what’s being installed” to an Apple-provided App Store.
Bold of you to assume you can speak for every Apple user out there. Not only are you repeating Apple's poor excuses, but also for some reason think people love the corporate policies so much they want them in their personal lives too?
No thanks, I can think for myself, I don't need the OEM to tell me what I can and cannot do with hardware I pay for. And if you prefer someone to think for you, nobody is forcing you to use other app stores or install software from the web.
Btw you realize that a sandbox is the only thing keeping you "safe" while you browse the web, right?
"when I asked what changes I should make to be compliant, they had no idea, nor when I asked what a retro game console is. "
Yeah, it's Apple. They find excuses and make up rules to refer to when they deny you, but they will never, ever publish a clear guide of how to respect the rules.
That would remove the ability to deny you, you see, and Cupertino needs that ability to ensure control.
Control is paramount. Publishing the rulebook would remove control.
That cannot be allowed.
Someone should submit a PS1 Net Yaroze emulator just to see what happens, perhaps the app store will disappear in a puff of smoke.
An operating system is far more complex than a single app, and could introduce many more security issues.
Oh bollocks. The emulator is the app, the OS is run by the emulator, not by the host machine. Sure, the emulator might have flaws, but that applies whether it's running an old game or an old OS. And from my younger hackier days, I can tell you that old games do much freakier things than the average OS of the era.
> UTM SE was also rejected from certification for third-party app stores in the EU, the developer said, based on section 2.5.2 because section 4.7 only applies to apps published in Apple's App Store.
Sorry. I've had a few. My reading comprehension is suffering.
Why do arbitrary Apple rules for apps in their own legally determined to be monopolistic app stores apply to third party app stores they have been forced to provide? In fact, more stringent ones?
I'm ok with popping a big "potential malware" warning. "We can't deterministically prove what this app will do". But how can it be banned?
The 3rd party app must still be signed by Apple and if Apple refuse to sign it, no iPhone will install it.
Buying an alleged computing device worth 1000 currency units is still not enough for Apple, they have to be there afterwards for the lifetime of your device saying what you can and can't do with it using rules which they themselves can't define. It's absurd, but apparently some people find the security and privacy excuses that Apple reach for whatever this nonsense happens comforting.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
