71–80 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DMA stifles innovation and would make many recent iOS features illegal. 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.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> apps have to be self-contained and can’t execute code “which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps.” 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 believ…
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.
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.
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…
The DMA stifles innovation and would make many recent iOS features illegal. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> apps have to be self-contained and can’t execute code “which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps.” 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 believ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 the…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> apps have to be self-contained and can’t execute code “which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps.” 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 believ…
Meanwhile, every RN app uses CodePush to dynamically update its code
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 downvoted you because you only emotionalized OP’s point without addressing the reply above.
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.