Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

litchie.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 116 posts

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#61

Post by ggm »

Being excluded from the store doesn't mean your code cannot run. It just means people have to want to jump over more hoops to run it. Ultimately, it might mean $99 for a developer account, Xcode, and signing your own binary. Contract law covers how you get the code to compile.

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.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#62

Post by Kwpolska »

ggm wrote: post #61

Being excluded from the store doesn't mean your code cannot run. It just means people have to want to jump over more hoops to run it. Ultimately, it might mean $99 for a developer account, Xcode, and signing your own binary. Contract law covers how you get the code to compile. I only say this because there is no sense in pretending this is an absolutist position, that Apple has forbade their CPUs from executing instr…

This app was also rejected from EU alternative app stores (which is illegal BTW), so the only way to get it would be something like the classic AltStore, which requires a real computer, and allows only three apps to be installed, and the apps expire every 7 days. https://faq.altstore.io/how-to-use-altstore/your-altstore

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#63

Post by TillE »

Shank wrote: post #14
mortenjorck wrote: post #7

Original post is from April, but there is an update at the bottom from June: > 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 yester…

> 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 cod…

> While the DMA may eventually force Apple to slide on this rule, currently it doesn't actually solve the problem at-hand.

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.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#64

Post by Auracle »

ed_mercer wrote: post #16

Submitting apps to the App Store is one of the more frustrating things in life. Reviewers are lazy, random and don’t do any homework. You roll a dice and hope you don’t have any issues. Couple that with a bloated Xcode that still hasn’t learned anything from VS Code, long compile times, long processing times, bullshit compliance checkboxes and the time-consuming filling out of information of what your app is all abou…

Heh, try the process for getting a dev kit from Nintendo. Or going through the lotcheck process for actually publishing/updating.

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.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#65

Post by realusername »

bhawks wrote: post #54
giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

Apple seriously needs to make all internal coms about rejecting apps public to the person being rejected. I do mean all this way, when people blog about it, there's no more ambiguity and it can be assessed. Also, you can see if they're rejecting it for something they already approved of prior. It feels like some people doing the reviews dont look at prior history at all. Maybe they dont even get access to it, or mayb…

This type of chest beating principal lacks nuance, there are certainly reasons why a reasonable person would agree it is in Apple (or any marketplace operator) not to share rationale directly with the creator. The easiest example would be comms indicating that Apple is detecting malicious behaviors (spam, fraud, abuse, etc) in the app. Disclosing information what can (and implicitly what cannot be detected) is self d…

They won't provide any rationale the same way a justice court in a dictatorship doesn't need to refer to actual laws to justify their decision.

The appstore process is arbitrary by design, to keep power inside the company.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#66

Post by isodev »

mortenjorck wrote: post #7

Original post is from April, but there is an update at the bottom from June: > 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 yester…

Indeed, the entire app store review is just a facade for Apple's market grabbing practices. I'm more than happy the EU is taking steps to address this. I really wish folks in the US would step back for a second and stop defending the corporation with "end to end" control of their life.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#67

Post by isodev »

lxgr wrote: post #32
teruakohatu wrote: post #22

It is worth mentioned that iDOS 2 was a paid app on the App Store for 6-7 years before it was booted. 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.

Careful now, or you might just get Safari banned by the App Store reviewers... 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…

> Careful now, or you might just get Safari banned by the App Store reviewers...

Haha, none of FruitCorp's stock apps are able to pass review if they were ever submitted.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#68

Post by saagarjha »

realusername wrote: post #65
bhawks wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This type of chest beating principal lacks nuance, there are certainly reasons why a reasonable person would agree it is in Apple (or any marketplace operator) not to share rationale directly with the creator. The easiest example would be comms indicating that Apple is detecting malicious behaviors (spam, fraud, abuse, etc) in the app. Disclosing information what can (and implicitly what cannot be detected) is self d…

They won't provide any rationale the same way a justice court in a dictatorship doesn't need to refer to actual laws to justify their decision. The appstore process is arbitrary by design, to keep power inside the company.

I mean, even a court doesn't publish all the deliberation that goes into arriving at a decision. They prepare a final verdict and deliver it–while it would be interesting to see, we have reasons we don't post things like "juror 2 thinks what you did was barely legal".

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#69

Post by mschuster91 »

bhawks wrote: post #54
giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

Apple seriously needs to make all internal coms about rejecting apps public to the person being rejected. I do mean all this way, when people blog about it, there's no more ambiguity and it can be assessed. Also, you can see if they're rejecting it for something they already approved of prior. It feels like some people doing the reviews dont look at prior history at all. Maybe they dont even get access to it, or mayb…

This type of chest beating principal lacks nuance, there are certainly reasons why a reasonable person would agree it is in Apple (or any marketplace operator) not to share rationale directly with the creator. The easiest example would be comms indicating that Apple is detecting malicious behaviors (spam, fraud, abuse, etc) in the app. Disclosing information what can (and implicitly what cannot be detected) is self d…

> The easiest example would be comms indicating that Apple is detecting malicious behaviors (spam, fraud, abuse, etc) in the app. Disclosing information what can (and implicitly what cannot be detected) is self defeating.

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...

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#70

Post by rekoil »

idle_zealot wrote: post #44
cageface wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could sort of see the justification for requiring notarization giving Apple a kill switch to shutdown malware. But if it's just turning into another kind of app review then we can't really say the Mac is still an open platform.

Notarization is not a reasonable implemetation of a malware kill switch. All you'd need for that is an Apple-published list of known-bad app ids that the OS could check itself against periodically. No, notarization is a control mechanism to impede the creation and distribution of any non-Apple-approved apps.

App IDs don't really work for this purpose if Apple aren't in control of generating them, nothing is stopping a malware vendor from literally never reusing app IDs. Notarization is a reasonable implementation, 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). That way they can disable all apps signed by one developer, and can more quickly react to malicious actors, without it becoming a problem for normal users.
Post reply on HN