4 ms·

iDOS 3 App Review appeal rejected despite UTM PC Emulator Approval

41 points by tech234a 2y ago

p0w3n3d 2y ago
We're living in times where big companies create (unlawful) law systems (theoretically based on law _somewhere_) and force others to obey (you must agree to our terms), without giving possibility to appeal nor have their rights proven under the real court (because it would be for example too expensive, or because that "you have accepted our terms"). This was funny unless people jobs and lives started to rely on those big companies, and their _de facto_ monopoly (if your store vanishes from Google Maps your store will surely vanish in real life eventually)
- throwaway3306a 2y ago
  How exactly is it unlawful? What law exactly says you have a right for appeal, or any rights to the company services at all? I don't want to say there isn't room for improvement. But I am not aware of any current law that would mean any of this is unlawful. I'd like to be proven wrong.
  - a2128 2y ago
    EU's DMA recognizes the existence of gatekeepers and is supposed to make this kind of behavior unlawful and require allowing 3rd party app stores as an alternative
    - linotype 2y ago
      Nevermind.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        Does Apple allow iDOS3 in the EU?
        linotype 2y ago
        Doesn’t appear to be. They may not be in compliance with EU law. Companies should be allowed to police their own stores in jurisdictions where that’s allowed. I’m glad the App Store isn’t a mess like it is on my Android device. It’s one of the reasons my primary phone is an iPhone.
        tech234a 2y ago
        It’s worth noting that the rejection cited rule 4.7, which only applies on Apple’s App Store and not for Notarization [1]. I would think that if the dev applied for EU distribution it would likely be accepted. By extension, Apple might then also accept it for the App Store to prevent third-party stores from having ‘exclusive apps’, as has happened with both Delta (and emulators in general) and UTM SE [2]. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#third-party-software https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#thi... [2]: https://mastodon.social/@rileytestut/112791043604056224 https://mastodon.social/@rileytestut/112791043604056224
    - throwaway3306a 2y ago
      That is not nearly enough and has nothing to do with app stores.
  - alanlammiman 2y ago
    This specific issue is a central part of the US DOJ antitrust case against Apple, so there's a team of attorneys-general who think its unlawful.
    - throwaway3306a 2y ago
      So what about all the other services that aren't monopolies?
  - p0w3n3d 2y ago
    > What law exactly says you have a right for appeal This is Roman Law foundation. I mean all fair legal systems have been founded on Roman Law, others are simply totalitarian
    - throwaway3306a 2y ago
      Terms and conditions are not legal systems.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  We have to recognize that companies above a certain amount of revenue or profit or users are as powerful as the government. Let’s not waste time debating their practices - their size is itself a problem. Once above some threshold they really should be governed like a public utility.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  They're only requiring their customers/developers/partners to play by their rules, and so far, we still have the ability to choose not to be customers. Nobody's yet put a gun to my head and forced me to agree to a company's terms of service.
  - alanlammiman 2y ago
    No, they are publishing rules, citing those rules as published in court hearings regarding antitrust etc., and then covertly disregarding their own rules when it is convenient for them.
tech234a 2y ago
I had to add ?updated to the URL because a previous version of the article was discussed last month [1]. The comments widget on that site appears to vary depending on the exact URL even if the content is the same, so if you want to view the comments and replies placed on the article itself, use the original link: https://litchie.com/2024/04/new-hope https://litchie.com/2024/04/new-hope [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40782541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40782541
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
alanlammiman 2y ago
This is really interesting. Our app Sticky (https://getstic.ky https://getstic.ky) has been rejected based on guideline 4.7 too. We are a social media app and included HTML5 games. Apple kept claiming that "offering HTML5 games appears to be the primary purpose of your app" which is not the case (certainly not in the update we are submitting) as we have several other features with equal weight. The changes to guideline 4.7 which allow HTML5 mini-games or mini-apps and which allow emulators were made in late January of this year, shortly before the US DOJ antitrust suit, where these issues are central, was filed (March). I imagine Apple changed the guideline for a legal or PR reason related to that suit, but does not really want to follow its own updated guidelines and so is finding every excuse it possibly can to reject emulators and apps with HTML5 mini-games/mini-apps. In our case, after the appeal, we were called up by someone from Apple who started the call saying they did not consent to it being recorded (how's that for inspiring trust?), who walked-back what they had said about HTML5 (and of course they did not put that in writing in the message they sent afterwards), but then came up with a couple of brand-new reasons for keeping our update off the store: claiming that we had changed the app concept... because our app was different some 4 years ago and hundreds of updates ago when it started! And including mentioning rule 4.7 regarding emulators... which we are not and do not claim to be! So I'm glad that you made this public, because I suspected we were not the only ones who were getting bogus rejections around rule 4.7, and you have confirmed it. If our issue is not resolved by the end of the week intend to publish the entire history of communication with App Review printed-off from App Store Connect so people can have a look and see for themselves.
- tomaskafka 2y ago
  Literally the first and main point on Sticky website (and a homepage of their app) is: PLAY GAMES Loads of fun games in one app Free to play & no ads I bet HTML5 games also totally overshadow both the other claimed use cases in time-spent and UI-space metrics. They just made an app for HTML games despite Apple telling openly for years that this isn’t allowed on iOS (whether this is a good or bad policy is a different question).
smileybarry 2y ago
This is especially dumb considering that RetroArch was approved and supports DOS emulation. I’ve used it to run a few DOS games already.
lpod 2y ago
[flagged]

41 points by tech234a 2y ago

We're living in times where big companies create (unlawful) law systems (theoretically based on law _somewhere_) and force others to obey (you must agree to our terms), without giving possibility to appeal nor have their rights proven under the real court (because it would be for example too expensive, or because that "you have accepted our terms"). This was funny unless people jobs and lives started to rely on those big companies, and their _de facto_ monopoly (if your store vanishes from Google Maps your store will surely vanish in real life eventually)

throwaway3306a 2y ago
How exactly is it unlawful? What law exactly says you have a right for appeal, or any rights to the company services at all? I don't want to say there isn't room for improvement. But I am not aware of any current law that would mean any of this is unlawful. I'd like to be proven wrong.
- a2128 2y ago
  EU's DMA recognizes the existence of gatekeepers and is supposed to make this kind of behavior unlawful and require allowing 3rd party app stores as an alternative
  - linotype 2y ago
    Nevermind.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      Does Apple allow iDOS3 in the EU?
      - linotype 2y ago
        Doesn’t appear to be. They may not be in compliance with EU law. Companies should be allowed to police their own stores in jurisdictions where that’s allowed. I’m glad the App Store isn’t a mess like it is on my Android device. It’s one of the reasons my primary phone is an iPhone.
      - tech234a 2y ago
        It’s worth noting that the rejection cited rule 4.7, which only applies on Apple’s App Store and not for Notarization [1]. I would think that if the dev applied for EU distribution it would likely be accepted. By extension, Apple might then also accept it for the App Store to prevent third-party stores from having ‘exclusive apps’, as has happened with both Delta (and emulators in general) and UTM SE [2]. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#third-party-software https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#thi... [2]: https://mastodon.social/@rileytestut/112791043604056224 https://mastodon.social/@rileytestut/112791043604056224
  - throwaway3306a 2y ago
    That is not nearly enough and has nothing to do with app stores.
- alanlammiman 2y ago
  This specific issue is a central part of the US DOJ antitrust case against Apple, so there's a team of attorneys-general who think its unlawful.
  - throwaway3306a 2y ago
    So what about all the other services that aren't monopolies?
- p0w3n3d 2y ago
  > What law exactly says you have a right for appeal This is Roman Law foundation. I mean all fair legal systems have been founded on Roman Law, others are simply totalitarian
  - throwaway3306a 2y ago
    Terms and conditions are not legal systems.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
We have to recognize that companies above a certain amount of revenue or profit or users are as powerful as the government. Let’s not waste time debating their practices - their size is itself a problem. Once above some threshold they really should be governed like a public utility.
ryandrake 2y ago
They're only requiring their customers/developers/partners to play by their rules, and so far, we still have the ability to choose not to be customers. Nobody's yet put a gun to my head and forced me to agree to a company's terms of service.
- alanlammiman 2y ago
  No, they are publishing rules, citing those rules as published in court hearings regarding antitrust etc., and then covertly disregarding their own rules when it is convenient for them.

tech234a 2y ago

I had to add ?updated to the URL because a previous version of the article was discussed last month [1]. The comments widget on that site appears to vary depending on the exact URL even if the content is the same, so if you want to view the comments and replies placed on the article itself, use the original link: https://litchie.com/2024/04/new-hope https://litchie.com/2024/04/new-hope [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40782541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40782541

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

alanlammiman 2y ago

This is really interesting. Our app Sticky (https://getstic.ky https://getstic.ky) has been rejected based on guideline 4.7 too. We are a social media app and included HTML5 games. Apple kept claiming that "offering HTML5 games appears to be the primary purpose of your app" which is not the case (certainly not in the update we are submitting) as we have several other features with equal weight. The changes to guideline 4.7 which allow HTML5 mini-games or mini-apps and which allow emulators were made in late January of this year, shortly before the US DOJ antitrust suit, where these issues are central, was filed (March). I imagine Apple changed the guideline for a legal or PR reason related to that suit, but does not really want to follow its own updated guidelines and so is finding every excuse it possibly can to reject emulators and apps with HTML5 mini-games/mini-apps. In our case, after the appeal, we were called up by someone from Apple who started the call saying they did not consent to it being recorded (how's that for inspiring trust?), who walked-back what they had said about HTML5 (and of course they did not put that in writing in the message they sent afterwards), but then came up with a couple of brand-new reasons for keeping our update off the store: claiming that we had changed the app concept... because our app was different some 4 years ago and hundreds of updates ago when it started! And including mentioning rule 4.7 regarding emulators... which we are not and do not claim to be! So I'm glad that you made this public, because I suspected we were not the only ones who were getting bogus rejections around rule 4.7, and you have confirmed it. If our issue is not resolved by the end of the week intend to publish the entire history of communication with App Review printed-off from App Store Connect so people can have a look and see for themselves.

tomaskafka 2y ago
Literally the first and main point on Sticky website (and a homepage of their app) is: PLAY GAMES Loads of fun games in one app Free to play & no ads I bet HTML5 games also totally overshadow both the other claimed use cases in time-spent and UI-space metrics. They just made an app for HTML games despite Apple telling openly for years that this isn’t allowed on iOS (whether this is a good or bad policy is a different question).

smileybarry 2y ago

This is especially dumb considering that RetroArch was approved and supports DOS emulation. I’ve used it to run a few DOS games already.

lpod 2y ago

[flagged]