10 ms·
Apple blocks PC emulator in iOS App Store and third-party app stores
- humzashahid98 2y agoIs the "no JIT' policy somehow baked into the hardware/software of iOS devices, instead of something Apple finds by doing an app review? I thought it was the latter (that running a JIT on iOS would be possible but not accepted on the app store), but then I'm left wondering why they seem to have submitted a JIT-less version on a third party app store. Maybe the intent was ease development by having only one version to support for the first-party and also third-party app stores.
- grishka 2y agoIIRC it's part of the sandbox apps run in, which, in turn, makes use of the hardware memory protection. To do JIT, you need to first write your dynamically generated code into the memory, and then execute it. The memory you obtain via e.g. malloc() doesn't allow execution, only reading and writing (this is controlled by permission flags, in the page table, on the memory pages your app is given by the kernel). To obtain memory that is both writable and executable, you call mmap() specifying corresponding flags. The kernel just refuses to allocate such memory for your app because it doesn't have necessary permissions, or "entitlements" in Apple speak.
- humzashahid98 2y agoThank you for the insightful answer! That's nice to know. I hadn't considered that they had a system like that in place.
- andrekandre 2y agodoesn't it seem a bit strange that apple would allow emulation of game consoles which (for the most part) are used with pirated games but a pc emulator that is more easily can use legitimate copies is blocked for 'reasons'... its almost like apple is encouraging piracy... btw, i think the top comment on that article nails it: > This is clearly Apple just blocking anything that could allow the iPad to be used as a real computer
- pquki4 2y agoPersonally I care about this much more than whatever AI stuff happens at WWDC. This is the real "developer" issue we are talking about.
- xnx 2y agoThis leaves a market need open to Android and Windows tablets, but they haven't made anything nearly as good for the price. (Except for a short period where the Pixel tablet was less than $200)
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoWe need new anti trust legislation and harsh enforcement, enacted retroactively. Until executives have compensation clawed back and face jail time, this will continue.
- Woshiwuja 2y agoHow tf can they block third parties app?
- oneplane 2y agoYes, we know. (from earlier:) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40627155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40627155 It's not surprising.
- justin66 2y agoOdd that Apple gets a veto over what can go into a third-party app store.
- CamperBob2 2y agoAlmost as if the third-party app store is not really an independent third party.
- Hamuko 2y agoIt's not that odd considering that they made their approval aka notarization an explicit requirement for non-App Store apps. They also have that same veto power for all apps on macOS, although tech savvy users can bypass that veto.
- justin66 2y ago> they made their approval aka notarization an explicit requirement for non-App Store apps I mean, okay, but that's just another thing that seems odd. I don't know why anyone is calling it a "third party" app store in that case.
- intrasight 2y agoWhy do you think it odd? It makes total sense to me that they decide what software is allowed on their device.
- pquki4 2y agoDid you read this comment twice yourself to see the problem?
- jjav 2y ago> It makes total sense to me that they decide what software is allowed on their device. What do you mean their device? If they gift it to me for free, ok it is their device. If I buy it, it is MINE and only I must be able to control what runs on it.
- 2y ago
- darby_nine 2y agoI don't understand why there isn't appetite to simply regulate them out of controlling what software you put on your device. I've been using Macs my whole life (since the early nineties) and I'm as loyal a user as anyone. I've given them probably enough money to put down a downpayment on a small house. Behavior like this will drive me away if it cannot be addressed, even if it means I have to go to china to find a better hardware vendor.
- kmeisthax 2y agoEU DMA was supposed to do exactly that, which is why they're talking about Notarization, but Apple is maliciously half-complying. The good news is that the DMA also has specific legal penalties for this kind of half-compliance[0], the bad news is that the EU is a slow and bureaucratic organization so who knows when that will actually be enforced. [0] oddly enough called "anti-circumvention provisions", which is fucking hilarious
- oneplane 2y agoMaybe someone will. Either way, such a move would break their business model, and you'd end up with just another android which is not what the market wants (because if they did, Apple would have gone out of business already). I was looking for an earlier thread (which also involved Nokia and Windows Mobile) which shows the sort of timelines/cascading effects you'd have where vendors generally either become overly generic or just outright fail (i.e. BlackBerry). When I'll find it I'll edit and add it here. Edit: didn't find it yet, but there are variations on appliance vs. general purpose hardware where things like smart TVs and android phone bootloaders are used as similar examples. I wish I had a better timeline search for threads.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- shaan7 2y agoThat is an interesting take, so basically in your opinion the main thing that makes iOS better than Android is that Apple has tighter control over the apps? What I've heard from most iOS users is other things like smoother interface, better battery life, great camera etc. I've never heard "I like iPhone because Apple moderates the App Store" from laymen (i.e. non-HN crowd).
- kelthuzad 2y agoIf Apple can block what's on "independent" third-party app stores, then the letter of the DMA may be violated or not, but its spirit is most certainly violated. Hope the EU cracks down on such malicious compliance.
- iamkonstantin 2y agoApple's compliance with the DMA has been painful to begin with. Instead of embracing the intended spirit of the regulation, they opted to be as difficult and as toxic as possible. As a developer, I feel tired and exhausted from constantly having to battle with the platform giants just so that eventually we can find a way to co-exist on "their" platforms.
- outside2344 2y agoPretty clear anti-competitive activity
- malermeister 2y agoYeah there's no way this is gonna fly.
- speedylight 2y agoLawyers don’t care about the spirit of any law, it’s the language that matters!
- HaZeust 2y agoThat's right. There's something I always say: "Lawyers are only purposivists when it benefits them, and textualists at any other avenue."
- galangalalgol 2y agoDoesn't that depend on the venue? I thought I had read that some European member states had more subjective intent based enforcement?
- gorkish 2y agoI remember the flash-in-the-pan moment where through some strange conflux of exploits and firmware features UTM on iOS was able to access full hardware virtualization support. It was a glorious glimpse into an alternate reality that we will likely never get to see again. I don't have enough superlatives to express my disappointment when seeing all of that effort suppressed and restricted by Apple. When the UTM authors say "it's not worth it" -- they may be onto something. Apple is slowly but surely beginning to be "not worth it" for me and for many other professional users. Happy WWDC everybody; enjoy getting fucked.
- ShellfishMeme 2y agoI was naively hoping that with the M4 iPad the opposite of this would happen and they would let us unlock the power of this device so I could use it as my dev machine when I'm traveling. Instead, no real improvements are coming to iPad OS and if you're not gaming or video editing, all you get to do is marveling at how powerful your YouTube player is in benchmarks. Please Apple, let the Pro device finally be a Pro device and let us use virtualization.
- gorkish 2y agoThe fact that the new $3k+ M4 iPad Pro cannot run regular OS X in some kind of VM or something is flat-out insulting.
- willsmith72 2y agosurely it's coming. you don't keep maxing that thing out otherwise
- nathanasmith 2y agoThe bright side is over the last couple of years I've been broken of my lust for every new device that comes out promising "newer and shinier." The reality is it's the same old locked down slab just a little faster with added bing bings and wahoos. So now I just save most of the cash and spend the rest on upgrading my PC.
- throwaway48476 2y agoApple should be allowed to block whatever they want from their app store. And users should be allowed to run whatever software they wish on their devices not installed through Apple's store.
- zzo38computer 2y agoYes, I agree, with both.
- SergeAx 2y ago"Their devices"? The owner of the device is the one with root privileges.
- jb1991 2y agoIt really is a simple as this. People often make it more complicated than this fundamental issue.
- postalrat 2y agoShow apple be able to block apps from third party stories like in the article?
- throwaway48476 2y agoApple should allowed to block apps from third party app stores on devices they paid for.
- LeoPanthera 2y agoUTM is open source, so you can build it yourself for your own iOS device, if you really want to.
- rldjbpin 2y agothe whole point of the third-party stores currently is to help you avoid doing all of that
- rcarmo 2y agoBut you have to keep re-signing it every week or so, which is a major pain
- adamomada 2y agoCheck out https://sideloadly.io https://sideloadly.io to ease that pain
- rcarmo 2y agoThe loopholes it uses won't work for long, and it's not practical when traveling. Besides, this is an Apple-created problem that they could easily fix by allowing people to deploy apps to their own devices without any stupid limits.
- oflebbe 2y agoBut you may not have access to API capabilities needed without an paid account.
- xutopia 2y agoThat's not the same as being available as an easily installable executable and such a drawback for most people.
- JDW1023 2y agoDoesn't building an iOS app requires an Mac?
- holoduke 2y agoThere should be very strict counter penalties for false claims in my opinion. I once received a dmca from a much larger (foreign) company than us. Result was complete loss of revenue for one month. We survived, but it felt like a mafia action. Unfair and powerless.
- immibis 2y agoIsn't it your responsibility to sue them for that?
- kevingadd 2y agoSuing a foreign company is something like 5-25x more expensive and less likely to be successful. It's a huge defect in the DMCA that they can do this - every lawyer I talked to for a similar problem told me not to bother.
- withinboredom 2y agoIt's almost crazy that someone hasn't come up with an insurance company for false DCMA claims. They'd probably be rolling in cash and it would put some serious pressure on people throwing their weight around.
- kevingadd 2y agoI'm not sure the economics would work out. It seems like it would be tough to get the bad actors to pay out in court beyond getting your legal fees back. In many cases they're basically just little scam corporations without many real assets that exist to cause trouble on behalf of the real bad actors.
- withinboredom 2y agoThat's not how insurance companies work. Basically, the amount of YouTubers out there paying a monthly fee to 1. continue getting income while a dispute is ongoing, 2. potential payout if it goes to court/settled. Basically, the insurance company would probably very rarely go to court; they'd only do it if they knew they would win hands-down. Otherwise, they would probably just send threatening letters (which lawyers are good at) and take a token sum (if anything). In reality, getting a false DCMA takedown is pretty rare (if the amount of YouTube content is anything to go by). And lets not mention all the free publicity you'd get when a YouTuber does get one, because they all apparently, rant and rave about how they got their video taken down when it is taken down.
- mfuzzey 2y agoThis is the reason I will never use the Apple ecosystem, even if the hardware is pretty good. A hardware manufacturer has no business telling me what I may or may not run on hardware I have purchased, period.
- solarkraft 2y agoIt's so nice of them to act so openly maliciously so that not even the most naive person can believe they should have a say in which apps get published in third party stores.
- kmeisthax 2y agoIt's really weird seeing Apple say "sure, we allowed a console emulator, but PC emulation is still banned". If anything I expected them to allow the latter before the former. On the other hand, the reason why UTM got banned is completely obvious: it lets users operate desktop software with a finger. That's the same reason why iDOS 2 got banned[0], and if iSH shipped with a graphical output they wouldn't have unbanned that either. The whole reason why the iPad exists at all as a separate product line with a separate UI toolkit from Macs is purely because Apple - specifically, Steve Jobs - said so. Apple's entire foray into multitouch was borne out of Steve Jobs wanting to spite a 'friend'[1] at the pen computing division of Microsoft. It can be summed up with the phrase "who wants a stylus"?[2] That's why they continue to saddle the iPad with inferior, buggier phone software, because they think it's literally the only way a tablet can be made. So literally anything that might let someone turn an iPhone or an iPad into a Windows tablet is considered the worst kind of heresy in the Apple religion. Anyway, I hope the EU smacks Apple down on this, because Apple very clearly promised that EU DMA compliant Notarization would only filter for technical compatibility, not taste. [0] Yes, Apple said a bunch of stuff about how it "allows content without licensing", but we saw with Delta how easily that concern crumbles away. [1] I do not believe Jobs could have friends in the way we understand the word. [2] The Apple Pencil doesn't count. A "stylus" is a physical tool intended to work around software not being designed for touch.