iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple(litchie.com) |
iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple(litchie.com) |
> Got a call from Apple after 2 months. They have decided that iDOS is not a retro game console, so the new rule is not applicable. They suggested I make changes and resubmit for review, but 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.
We need a DMA over here yesterday.
I understand why you would believe this, but Apple currently refuses to notarize UTM for distribution outside of the App Store via Notarization under rule 2.5.2:
> UTM also noted that Apple is barring UTM SE from being notarized for third-party app stores because the app apparently violated guideline 2.5.2. That rule states that apps have to be self-contained and can’t execute code “which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps.” [0]
While the DMA may eventually force Apple to slide on this rule, currently it doesn't actually solve the problem at-hand.
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/24/24185066/apple-pc-dos-emu...
People keep saying stuff like this about the DMA and it's very confusing to me. Of course Apple can choose to break the law, but there are consequences for that. It doesn't mean the law is ineffective just because investigation and enforcement is not instantaneous.
Meanwhile, on the very same app store:
iSH – runs unmodified x86 Linux binaries and even supports custom APK repos: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ish-shell/id1436902243
a-Shell – runs WASI binaries (via Apple's native out-of-process runtime, so it even gets to JIT, I believe!) and comes with a C compiler, as well as Python: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/a-shell/id1473805438
LibTerm – compiles and runs arbitrary C via lldb: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/libterm/id1380911705
But yeah, sure these are all somehow self-contained in a way that a DOS emulator can't possibly be in a way only App Store reviewers are enlightened enough to grasp.
/s in case.
Apple Intelligence - points you to Apple Music or Apple Maps as a response to your query? Illegal.
iPhone Mirroring - doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal.
Shareplay screen sharing - doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal.
There's a reason those features are not getting an EU release.
There's a very trivial solution here that Apple already applies to password managers and Android applies to a bunch of things: allow the user to pick a Music and a Maps app.
Real innovation would be for iOS devices to be interoperable with non-Apple technology.
If Apple can't make those features interoperable, then they shouldn't exist at all. With Apple's size and access to development resources, there is absolutely no excuse for them other than greed.
DMA enforcement is about the spirit of the law rather than the clear meaning and so everything is vague and subjective.
And with the fines being so ridiculously large it's not worth the risk.
Siri has supported playing music on apps other than just Apple Music for a while now too (after taking their time with it for obvious reasons, which I found infuriating as a Spotify user).
This is so embarassing to see every time.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/23/22590511/idos-2-emulator-...
Safari on iOS has no issues emulating DOS games, other than the UI, I am surprised someone has not just wrapped a WebView in a console-esque UI.
Kidding aside, PWAs (also almost killed by Apple in their furious stomping on the ground after the DMA getting passed) used to be the canonical way to get around many App Store limitations in the past. There were quite a few emulators available for it, as well as game streaming clients for things like Stadia.
> Safari on iOS has no issues emulating DOS games, other than the UI, I am surprised someone has not just wrapped a WebView in a console-esque UI.
There's a-Shell, which does something similar, but for WASI as a runtime target instead of DOS.
But to Apple, it usually doesn't even matter how something is accomplished if they don't like the outcome. If they say that "DOS is not a retro console" (what does that even mean!?), they won't allow it in any form. (Sometimes they do care about the how; can't have third-party browser engines, for example.)
Haha, none of FruitCorp's stock apps are able to pass review if they were ever submitted.
“Apple has removed iDOS 2 from AppStore, citing the same old 2.5.2.” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28122895 - Aug 2021 (2 comments)
iDOS 2 will be gone soon - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27924207 - July 2021 (409 comments)
IDOS strikes back, returns to the App Store - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2123727 - Jan 2011 (1 comment)
No thanks, I’ll stick with PWAs.
...except for App Store reviews, which are frequently irrational, contradictory, and kafkaesque. (Automatically denied because the app shared the name with a version disallowed under the previous policy? Then denied because they had tried too many times? This is all absurd.)
Apple seriously needs to do a complete reset and reevaluation of how the App Store review system works, because the unfairness and absurdity of it all is tarnishing the reputation of everything else they do.
I only say this because there is no sense in pretending this is an absolutist position, that Apple has forbade their CPUs from executing instructions in sequence to the effect this or any other rejected app direct: what they stopped is making it transactionally easy, or chargeable under their model of revenue flow.
I think what is effective is that all violations where the creator is working in good faith to abide by guidelines should be treated with reasonable transparency about how the conclusion Apple came to was reached. What fraction of Apple devs are working in good faith? Obviously the vast majority. So therefore most rejections should have clear rationale.
The appstore process is arbitrary by design, to keep power inside the company.
So what, in a proper court of law all evidence has to be put up for review so that the court can make a proper decision, even if just on technicalities. In Germany, for example, you can get speeding tickets thrown out if you can show that the cops have put their radar in a wrong angle towards the street. Drug dealing trials have to leave out evidence if the accused cannot reasonably challenge them [1].
Now compare that to Apple, which in being the ultimate gatekeeper for access to the App Store for iOS and its iPad/Watch equivalents, currently acts as lawmaker, police, DA, judge and court enforcer at once, and its actions are directly affecting the livelihood of anyone wanting to publish an app on the App Stores - anyone from small indie developers to multibillion international conglomerates, and yes, sometimes spammers, scammers, fraudsters and other kinds of criminals.
And just like in the "real" world, it should not be one company all on its own who has that kind of power. Hence the EU got fed up and installed the Digital Markets Act.
[1] https://www.heise.de/news/EuGH-Nationale-Gerichte-duerfen-En...
It seems like if we want to have "fair" duopoly app stores (Apple and Android), then we need a regulator who is fully embedded and integrated into the process, but can view all details of the decision, including ones that should legitimately stay private (security, etc.). To be clear, the regulator needs to have the final say on what will be private and not. Also, the regulator needs to be involved in the appeals process.
That said, I still think we need to allow multiple app stores on each platform. Meta is large enough to do it. Yeah, I know, that will get no love here. And, unfortunately, it probably means lower security for unsophisticated end-users.
My very amateur reading of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773883 is that it probably literally is (edit: in the EU, to be clear). It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
https://law.gmnz.xyz/2022/02/02/submitting-urgent-hotfix.htm...
If the EU mandated it other jurisdictions would likely follow. Even if they didn’t, you’d likely just be able to incorporate an EU subsidiary, then resubmit the app in the subsidiary’s name, and then lodge the appeal in its name if the submission still gets rejected.
Even funnier after years of "Apple knows best". God forbid anyone buy an Android phone. No, apparently folks would rather force their abuser to be slightly nicer and then stay in that toxic relationship.
I made an app for the Wii U. There were multiple times before putting it on the store that my app was rejected for one thing, and then the next time I submitted it they rejected it because they wanted it the way I originally had it.
The app did decently well, so I thought I’d make a sequel for the Switch. I spent a month or two on enough of a prototype to show them and had my request for a dev kit flat out rejected multiple times, with absolutely no reason given. Not a single freaking word. I gave up.
Although, people might think you are poor. Which would be.. worse than death? Rather just not have an app for some people? lol
Yes, because users would much rather make purchases outside apps like Kindle because of Apple’s revenue cut. Apple is such a great company that it’s inconceivable they’d ever to protect their own interests and stifle competition.
Time and time again leaked emails show the decisions they make are what they believe are in the interest of money. They have some "do good" ideas, but they don't represent the interests of any public body of people, nor is it their main interest.
If they did, their products would be designed around repairability, for one. And the way they steer general computing into whatever restrictions make them more money (when they could just make general computers like they used to) is definitely not in the interests of the public.
All in all, I don't have a problem with Apple. It's a company, it serves its own investors' needs. It functions very well in the capitalistic system — very successful. But the idea that they, all in all, make decisions for the best of the public is contrived and reaching.
But I'd never mistake that for altruism or "taking decisions in the public good". They're a for-profit corporation, and these sometimes have the unfortunate habit of turning to rent seeking to keep supporting the profits expected of them even in the face of changing market realities. That's why we have regulators.
The decisions they make are in service to their revenue and market share numbers. If marketing their decisions as "for the public good" helps those, then that's what they do.
That's not always a bad thing! Sometimes the interests of a capitalist corporation actually aligns with the interests of its customers. The problem is that the link isn't always there, and things can change for the worse for arbitrary reasons.
The purpose of the system is what it does
You can't make statements like this without looking at it statistically.
There are tens of millions of updates a year and we only see the most egregious rejections make its way into the public sphere.
2. Fines are capped at high numbers. It doesn't mean you will be immediately slapped with one. Stop perpetuating this bullshit. The law says up to, not just this fine and that's it.
EU especially doesn't like fining companies. The usual process in the EU is "please fix this -> please fix that -> minor fine -> greater fine if persisting in breaking the law -> even greater fine -> ..."
How could it possibly make the review process slower? Such a tribunal would have zero role to play in reviewing the app. It only steps in if the developer wishes to appeal a review rejection. At which point it is reviewing, not the app itself, but rather the reasonableness of the review process which lead to the rejection of that particular app.
Also, I wouldn’t suggest government bureaucrats as appointees. My uncle, who is a lawyer, used to sit on one of these government tribunals in Australia (not reviewing app store rejections, reviewing rejections of applications for refugee status). He was not a bureaucrat and nor were any of the other appointees. The government advertised for lawyers in private practice to apply for appointment to the tribunal, and he applied, and he was appointed. His background was in criminal defence not government bureaucracy. And it was a part-time role, so he was still carrying on his private criminal defence practice while he sat on it. It is considered a quasi-judicial role (not technically a judge and not having the same prestige or qualifications or privileges as a judge, but performing some of the same functions)
By that logic, why have laws against murder?
Or form using the ID of another vendor.
> and it can even require some form of developer identification, it just can't be very deep identification, an e-mail address is enough (along with IP and other metadata gathered during the process).
I expect the typical malware writer will easily find a way to have a unique “e-mail address (along with IP and other metadata gathered during the process)”.
Because of that, “That way they can disable all apps signed by one developer” will not be possible.
It's a good reason why, for a lot of people, claims about Apple walled garden being such a privacy and security boon fall flat[2].
For all purposes, it's as capricious as other companies inscrutable "AI" systems.
[1] Back in 2011, when I tried my hand at the startup roulette, I remember meeting companies which due to bad experience decided that Apple market is not worth possibility of going bankrupt because approvals might suddenly get denied so late in the process to kill the project
[2] I remember how, before MS started submitting their own applications to AppStore/MAS, searching for certain microsoft products like a naive user got you a ton of scams that might be threading the needle on Apple rules - but not on intent.
it is far preferable to hashing everything out in court (or not, if you aren't swimming in cash).
I wish the lawmakers would just step in and regulate gatekeeping on devices, rather than reviewing every dispute. I would be perfectly happy with the same model they use on my macbook for unapproved binaries. If I download a non-approved app, just let me know that it is donwloaded from the internet/not approved safe by Apple, and let me run it if I so choose.
Australia does have relatively strong consumer protection laws. There is both a federal agency that does consumer protection and competition law (the ACCC, roughly equivalent to the US FTC) and also each state has an agency (my state’s is called Fair Trading NSW)
> There are so many posts from Ozzies
Random aside, I’d never thought about it before but it’s true - as someone pointed out on the Assange post, we Australians generally don’t call ourselves “Ozzies”, nowadays the standard spelling is “Aussies”
That said, I am left wondering why more major software publishers don't have the option to sideload Android apps. (It was a while since I looked into it, since I mostly use open source apps these days, but it seemed as though most companies were switching to a Google Play Store only route a few years back even though they had the brand recognition to bypass Google's store altogether. The only thing I can think of are support costs, since few people would know how to enable the ability to load apps from other sources.)
Then it's not emotional, it's a rational analysis of what's going on, there's a lot of money at stake here for Apple.
What juicy revenue do you think they were going to get from iPhone mirroring to the Mac?
And the EU as a whole is less than 10% of their revenue?
Yes
Good thing governments are on the side of the consumer at least, right?
Users in the US and the rest of the world do have it.
And we talking about the same EU government that every other year tries to make it a law that there must be a backdoor in messaging platforms?
And the same Apple that puts them there: https://support.apple.com/en-us/111754
But hey, at least Apple is more principled than those filthy, corrupt and privacy destroying governments. They would never kowtow to a higher power, our stout and beloved Apple.