6 ms·

Not being in the apple world I wondered if this submission meant anything had changed regarding running stuff like this on iOS, but no: >Why isn't this in the

by tjoff 7y ago

Not being in the apple world I wondered if this submission meant anything had changed regarding running stuff like this on iOS, but no: >Why isn't this in the AppStore? Apple does not permit any apps that has interpreted or generated code therefore it is unlikely that UTM will ever be allowed. However, there are various ways people on the internet have come up to side load apps without requiring a jailbreak. We do not condone or support any of these methods.

saber6 7y ago
You can pay for a developer account ($99/yr) which allows you to get your builds signed by Apple for the purposes of you running either dev-builds locally or internal-only apps for an organization. That's what they mean by "no jailbreak required". Flipside is you gotta pay for a dev account to get your stuff signed to allow it to run.
- gruez 7y ago
  You don't even need a (paid) developer account. Anyone with an apple id can sign ios apps with a validity of 7 days.
  - snazz 7y ago
    Not dynamically loaded libraries after 13.3.1, however.
    - jscheel 7y ago
      General consensus is that this is a bug though. Apple has not come out with any announced change.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  You need to pay a subscription to run your own code on your own device? Why anyone puts up with Apple's anticonsumerism is beyond me.
  - thebruce87m 7y ago
    Security. Privacy. Long term support of hardware (environment). No carrier crapware.
    - heavyset_go 7y ago
      > Security This is arguable. The amount of CVEs is pretty high for a closed-source platform. Several of those CVEs were exploited in the wild for years before being fixed.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Unfortunately this is true for the other commonly-used mobile OS as well.
        userbinator 7y ago
        ...which just lends more credence to the notion that you can pretend to be safe and lose your freedom, or you can face the reality that security isn't going to be perfect either way, and keep your freedom too.
      - thebruce87m 7y ago
        I don’t see this being any worse than their competitors, and the long term support of hardware means that when they fix them you’re more likely to get the fix.
      - syntheticcorp 7y ago
        Counting CVEs is not a good way of comparing security between software.
      - saber6 7y ago
        You're masquerading a religious issue (absoluteness of control of execution of compiled code on device) as a security issue. It is really simple: By requiring signed binaries, it significantly raises the barrier of entry to malware authors. Does it solve it? No. Also no one said it did. But it certainly makes it less of a free for all. Do I trust Apple to make sound decisions to prevent myself from being owned by some random s-kiddie (without talent)? Yes. They have demonstrated they are serious about a robust defense of the user's privacy and device security. Just my $.02
- josteink 7y ago
  > You can pay for a developer account ($99/yr) which allows you to get your builds signed by Apple So to test this on my iPhone, I need 1. to buy a Mac and 2. pay for an annual Apple development permission subscription. You really can’t make a platform worse than this, and I say that as an iPhone owner. It’s so frustrating! Can’t they publish this as a “test-flight” beta like for instance iSH does?
  - busymom0 7y ago
    No they are incorrect. That used to be the case but now you don’t need to pay a developer for testing on your own device. Only when you want to publish the app to App Store or need some specific developer feature like iCloud is when you need to pay.
dhosek 7y ago
I'd imagine most of those who would have need/interest in running this would probably have a developer account and could just compile and install it themselves.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- busymom0 7y ago
  Now a days you don’t even need a developer account for testing on your device if I remember right.
rgovostes 7y ago
> 2.5.2 Apps [may not] download, install, or execute code which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps. The rule changed, I think around the time that Swift Playgrounds came out, to add: > Educational apps designed to teach, develop, or allow students to test executable code may, in limited circumstances, download code provided that such code is not used for other purposes. Such apps must make the source code provided by the Application completely viewable and editable by the user. There are probably plenty of apps that do interpret downloaded code (the Frotz app to play old text adventures comes to mind) and fly under the radar. But Apple would surely be on the lookout for any kind of emulator, due to the legal risk.
- rlyshw 7y ago
  You can run seemingly unrestricted python code on your iOS devices with Pythonista [0]. I'm using it right now to proxy my hotspot connection through my iPhone. Not sure how they're allowed to exist on the app store, but it's been solid for me for a while now. [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pythonista-3/id1085978097 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pythonista-3/id1085978097
  - ericlewis 7y ago
    it is categorized as a learning application, but I am quite curious how you made a proxy with it.
    - zakki 7y ago
      I guess he made an app that open a port to let user to connect to it and proxy-ing the request
  - tech234a 7y ago
    Pythonista has been featured by Apple several times. As others have pointed out, only pure-Python modules can be used unless they are precompiled and included with the app.
- dwheeler 7y ago
trasz 7y ago
This is just not true. There are many emulators in AppStore, from i48 (which runs HP 48's native Saturn ROM), to ZORK, which runs PDP-11 binary of said game underneath, along with emulated RT-11 (or was it RSX-11?).
- tluyben2 7y ago
  Maybe it is emulators that generate code internally and these do not? I know that was why MSX emulators were forbidden while they cannot really hurt Apple sales... Anyway; I don't know if these emulators maybe do not generate code or are written with Core JS (for the most part) which apparently is allowed.
anonsivalley652 7y ago
Apple's control-freaking and exploitation of customers has reached peak unreasonableness. I don't think SJ would've been so focused on making trillions when some billions could be had with cooler, repairable, lasting products. Personally, I have one foot out of the door (hackintosh) regarding the Apple ecosystem. I'm going to let the iPhone 6S, iPad Pro 10.5 and Apple Watch 4 run however long they can, but that's probably it for me, I'll stick to repairable devices like my ThinkPad T480.
- dreamcompiler 7y ago
  It's ironic that Woz especially wanted to bring computing to the masses, not lock it down. Apple is the antithesis of its own founders' vision. Apple deserves to be disrupted.

by tjoff 7y ago

saber6 7y ago

You can pay for a developer account ($99/yr) which allows you to get your builds signed by Apple for the purposes of you running either dev-builds locally or internal-only apps for an organization. That's what they mean by "no jailbreak required". Flipside is you gotta pay for a dev account to get your stuff signed to allow it to run.

gruez 7y ago
You don't even need a (paid) developer account. Anyone with an apple id can sign ios apps with a validity of 7 days.
- snazz 7y ago
  Not dynamically loaded libraries after 13.3.1, however.
  - jscheel 7y ago
    General consensus is that this is a bug though. Apple has not come out with any announced change.
dahfizz 7y ago
You need to pay a subscription to run your own code on your own device? Why anyone puts up with Apple's anticonsumerism is beyond me.
- thebruce87m 7y ago
  Security. Privacy. Long term support of hardware (environment). No carrier crapware.
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    > Security This is arguable. The amount of CVEs is pretty high for a closed-source platform. Several of those CVEs were exploited in the wild for years before being fixed.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Unfortunately this is true for the other commonly-used mobile OS as well.
      - userbinator 7y ago
        ...which just lends more credence to the notion that you can pretend to be safe and lose your freedom, or you can face the reality that security isn't going to be perfect either way, and keep your freedom too.
    - thebruce87m 7y ago
      I don’t see this being any worse than their competitors, and the long term support of hardware means that when they fix them you’re more likely to get the fix.
    - syntheticcorp 7y ago
      Counting CVEs is not a good way of comparing security between software.
    - saber6 7y ago
      You're masquerading a religious issue (absoluteness of control of execution of compiled code on device) as a security issue. It is really simple: By requiring signed binaries, it significantly raises the barrier of entry to malware authors. Does it solve it? No. Also no one said it did. But it certainly makes it less of a free for all. Do I trust Apple to make sound decisions to prevent myself from being owned by some random s-kiddie (without talent)? Yes. They have demonstrated they are serious about a robust defense of the user's privacy and device security. Just my $.02
josteink 7y ago
> You can pay for a developer account ($99/yr) which allows you to get your builds signed by Apple So to test this on my iPhone, I need 1. to buy a Mac and 2. pay for an annual Apple development permission subscription. You really can’t make a platform worse than this, and I say that as an iPhone owner. It’s so frustrating! Can’t they publish this as a “test-flight” beta like for instance iSH does?
- busymom0 7y ago
  No they are incorrect. That used to be the case but now you don’t need to pay a developer for testing on your own device. Only when you want to publish the app to App Store or need some specific developer feature like iCloud is when you need to pay.

dhosek 7y ago

I'd imagine most of those who would have need/interest in running this would probably have a developer account and could just compile and install it themselves.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
busymom0 7y ago
Now a days you don’t even need a developer account for testing on your device if I remember right.

rgovostes 7y ago

> 2.5.2 Apps [may not] download, install, or execute code which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps. The rule changed, I think around the time that Swift Playgrounds came out, to add: > Educational apps designed to teach, develop, or allow students to test executable code may, in limited circumstances, download code provided that such code is not used for other purposes. Such apps must make the source code provided by the Application completely viewable and editable by the user. There are probably plenty of apps that do interpret downloaded code (the Frotz app to play old text adventures comes to mind) and fly under the radar. But Apple would surely be on the lookout for any kind of emulator, due to the legal risk.

rlyshw 7y ago
You can run seemingly unrestricted python code on your iOS devices with Pythonista [0]. I'm using it right now to proxy my hotspot connection through my iPhone. Not sure how they're allowed to exist on the app store, but it's been solid for me for a while now. [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pythonista-3/id1085978097 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pythonista-3/id1085978097
- ericlewis 7y ago
  it is categorized as a learning application, but I am quite curious how you made a proxy with it.
  - zakki 7y ago
    I guess he made an app that open a port to let user to connect to it and proxy-ing the request
- tech234a 7y ago
  Pythonista has been featured by Apple several times. As others have pointed out, only pure-Python modules can be used unless they are precompiled and included with the app.
dwheeler 7y ago

trasz 7y ago

This is just not true. There are many emulators in AppStore, from i48 (which runs HP 48's native Saturn ROM), to ZORK, which runs PDP-11 binary of said game underneath, along with emulated RT-11 (or was it RSX-11?).

tluyben2 7y ago
Maybe it is emulators that generate code internally and these do not? I know that was why MSX emulators were forbidden while they cannot really hurt Apple sales... Anyway; I don't know if these emulators maybe do not generate code or are written with Core JS (for the most part) which apparently is allowed.

anonsivalley652 7y ago

Apple's control-freaking and exploitation of customers has reached peak unreasonableness. I don't think SJ would've been so focused on making trillions when some billions could be had with cooler, repairable, lasting products. Personally, I have one foot out of the door (hackintosh) regarding the Apple ecosystem. I'm going to let the iPhone 6S, iPad Pro 10.5 and Apple Watch 4 run however long they can, but that's probably it for me, I'll stick to repairable devices like my ThinkPad T480.

dreamcompiler 7y ago
It's ironic that Woz especially wanted to bring computing to the masses, not lock it down. Apple is the antithesis of its own founders' vision. Apple deserves to be disrupted.