3 ms·
My reading is that they really wanted the non-SE version (i.e. the full performance one with JIT) on those devices, but recognized that wasn't going to happen g
by g_p 2y ago
My reading is that they really wanted the non-SE version (i.e. the full performance one with JIT) on those devices, but recognized that wasn't going to happen given the rules against using JIT.
Therefore they do not seem particularly bothered by this rejection, as it was not going to let them get the "full" version working anyway.
- userbinator 2y agoThen why did they even bother to try? That's what makes no sense.
- talldayo 2y ago> Then why did they even bother to try? Well for one, they already wrote the app. If you've got the $99/year developer subscription you might as well use it for something. And for two, the perceived slight against UTM on the App Store was the existence of a JIT compiler, which wasn't strictly essential (but very helpful for newer OSes). So disabling the JIT would at least give you novelty features, but even that version was rejected for some new, unspecified rugpull reason. Rationally, UTM doesn't want to play this game of cat-and-mouse unless Apple changes their policy to more explicitly allow their use-case.