4 ms·

No it does not. See for example: https://twitter.com/MikageEmu/status/1776558775064760798 https://twitter.com/MikageEmu/status/1776558775064760798 (from a forme

No it does not. See for example: https://twitter.com/MikageEmu/status/1776558775064760798 https://twitter.com/MikageEmu/status/1776558775064760798 (from a former Citra dev). Quoting the relevant parts: >No, the new App Store policies won't get us emulators on iOS. Sadly this has been grossly misreported by basically everyone. >The platform continues to be as unattractive for community emulators as ever. >[...] >Apple only wants emulators that offer in-app downloads >[...] >For 4.7.4: Sure, you could theoretically ship a list of the entire game library for a console. But what "universal links" would you even provide? >And again, language reveals the intent: "software available in your app" means they don't want users to bring their own.

jonny_eh 3y ago
The emulator could have download links to some public domain ROMs. The open question is if it allows the user to also add ROMs from their own file system or cloud drive. We won’t know until an emulator is submitted for review.
- derefr 3y ago
  Taking the Swift Playground app as precedent, I would assume that you could very likely submit an emulator app that allows users to “develop” and “test” their own game “projects” inside it. Apple would very likely counter by picking a nit about the distinction between ROMs (object code) and source code, though. But there’s a (to me, quite pleasing) counter to this: support import of / repo sync with game “source code” projects… where the source code can just be ASM, and so a disassembly of an existing published game will work just fine. This tactic is would push the responsibility for preventing IP theft off onto source code hosting services (e.g. GitHub… but self-hosted ones do exist, wink wink); and I think Apple’s lawyers would be pretty satisfied with that arrangement.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    > Apple would very likely counter by picking a nit about the distinction between ROMs (object code) and source code, though. There are iOS apps in the App Store allowing you to run unmodified Linux i386 binaries, so I think that ship has sailed. Of course Apple is only very weakly guided by precedent in their application review policies, as far as I can tell, so I don't think anybody can predict what they'll do in this case.
    - derefr 3y ago
      Yeah, but those apps have those "unmodified Linux i386 binaries" embedded into them where Apple can review them as part of the app's release, no?
numpad0 3y ago
Sounds like preparation for commercial "Archives" apps under respective console brands than about legalizing ROM downloads. Perhaps that Nintendo lawsuit story from while back was a bit of foreshadowing.
- giobox 3y ago
  Agreed, the reporting on this has been so poor. The wording of the rules and how we know Apple has enforced past similar rules makes it pretty likely to me this is for apps similar to the n64/snes app on the Switch Nintendo gives to their online service subscribers - "official" emulators with pre-packaged licensed ROMs or integrated licensed ROM downloads, not generic emulators loading loose ROM files from wherever. Nintendo could even just offer iOS versions of those Switch apps (not that I expect this, but maybe??) under these rules.
rchaud 3y ago
> Apple only wants emulators that offer in-app downloads Just what the retro games sector was lacking: the ability to pay a monthly fee to play games made decades ago.
- Rexxar 3y ago
  Can the in-app download be free ? Maybe they just want the ability to check the content.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    They are still copyright protected right? The whole premise is that you distribute a clean emulation platform and have the users torrent the roms from somewhere else. Trying to distribute them non-anonymously is a recipe for some trouble.
wahnfrieden 3y ago
I don't think this is at all certain yet There is language about restrictions on downloads on offer inside apps But that is very different from explicit language that in-app downloads must be the ONLY way to open content, which there is none In fact all it says is that the "emulators can offer downloads", not that they must It's normal for Apple rules to not clearly state what IS allowed, or to encourage things it allows explicitly
Andrex 3y ago
It opens the App Store to, say, a GB emulator that bundles several GB Studio games (with permission, of course). That's not nothing.

jonny_eh 3y ago

The emulator could have download links to some public domain ROMs. The open question is if it allows the user to also add ROMs from their own file system or cloud drive. We won’t know until an emulator is submitted for review.

derefr 3y ago
Taking the Swift Playground app as precedent, I would assume that you could very likely submit an emulator app that allows users to “develop” and “test” their own game “projects” inside it. Apple would very likely counter by picking a nit about the distinction between ROMs (object code) and source code, though. But there’s a (to me, quite pleasing) counter to this: support import of / repo sync with game “source code” projects… where the source code can just be ASM, and so a disassembly of an existing published game will work just fine. This tactic is would push the responsibility for preventing IP theft off onto source code hosting services (e.g. GitHub… but self-hosted ones do exist, wink wink); and I think Apple’s lawyers would be pretty satisfied with that arrangement.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > Apple would very likely counter by picking a nit about the distinction between ROMs (object code) and source code, though. There are iOS apps in the App Store allowing you to run unmodified Linux i386 binaries, so I think that ship has sailed. Of course Apple is only very weakly guided by precedent in their application review policies, as far as I can tell, so I don't think anybody can predict what they'll do in this case.
  - derefr 3y ago
    Yeah, but those apps have those "unmodified Linux i386 binaries" embedded into them where Apple can review them as part of the app's release, no?

numpad0 3y ago

Sounds like preparation for commercial "Archives" apps under respective console brands than about legalizing ROM downloads. Perhaps that Nintendo lawsuit story from while back was a bit of foreshadowing.

giobox 3y ago
Agreed, the reporting on this has been so poor. The wording of the rules and how we know Apple has enforced past similar rules makes it pretty likely to me this is for apps similar to the n64/snes app on the Switch Nintendo gives to their online service subscribers - "official" emulators with pre-packaged licensed ROMs or integrated licensed ROM downloads, not generic emulators loading loose ROM files from wherever. Nintendo could even just offer iOS versions of those Switch apps (not that I expect this, but maybe??) under these rules.

rchaud 3y ago

> Apple only wants emulators that offer in-app downloads Just what the retro games sector was lacking: the ability to pay a monthly fee to play games made decades ago.

Rexxar 3y ago
Can the in-app download be free ? Maybe they just want the ability to check the content.
- jojobas 3y ago
  They are still copyright protected right? The whole premise is that you distribute a clean emulation platform and have the users torrent the roms from somewhere else. Trying to distribute them non-anonymously is a recipe for some trouble.

wahnfrieden 3y ago

I don't think this is at all certain yet There is language about restrictions on downloads on offer inside apps But that is very different from explicit language that in-app downloads must be the ONLY way to open content, which there is none In fact all it says is that the "emulators can offer downloads", not that they must It's normal for Apple rules to not clearly state what IS allowed, or to encourage things it allows explicitly

Andrex 3y ago

It opens the App Store to, say, a GB emulator that bundles several GB Studio games (with permission, of course). That's not nothing.