Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
iDOS 2 will be gone soon (litchie.com)
187 points by taxyovio 88 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 122 comments

This is a good example of how innovation, competition and small businesses are being stifled by the anticompetitive behavior of the mobile app distribution cartel.

Consider contacting your state's Attorney General office, and the US Attorney General office. Many states' AG offices have antitrust divisions[1].

The US Dept. of Justice also has an Antitrust Division[2], along with a page that details how and why[3] to get in touch with them:

> Information from the public is vital to the work of the Antitrust Division. Your e-mails, letters, and phone calls could be our first alert to a possible violation of antitrust laws and may provide the initial evidence needed to begin an investigation.

The FTC has the Bureau of Competition[4], as well.

[1] https://www.naag.org/issues/antitrust/

[2] https://www.justice.gov/atr

[3] https://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations

[4] https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competi...

"innovation, competition and small business"

Not to mention the effect on intellectually curious users (and learning). These computers bundled with phones are crippled, tinker-proof, and there is no way to extend or improve them after purchase except as according to the seller's business model. Un-tethering from the seller and opting not to use their servers is effectively discouraged or prevented. "Protecting you" is a suspect justification for all the hoops one must jump through to "accept the risk". There is no anticipation of user autonomy. The world according to the seller is divided into "developers" and "users". Anyone in both categories is intended to pay Apple twice. First for the hardware, then again for the "developer certificate" and a percentage of any licensing revenue.

Maybe that is what the market is demanding. Or maybe the market does not have full information and thus does not understand the full spectrum of possible choices. As long as the cartel persists we will never know.

Anyone know who the point of contact for this is in the state of California?

Name email and phone number would be great for us to see and share

Good Luck.

The State of California will do precisely nothing about the abuses of the largest company on the planet, domiciled in their state, employing tens of thousands of the most well-paid and politically-connected taxpayers of their State, whose primary competitor in this space is doing exactly the same thing to their users, is also domiciled in the State, and is also pissing firehoses of money into its budgetary coffers.

Your call will be politely received, and the regulator on the line will duly note your concerns. After the call concludes, the regulator's office will promptly file your concerns under L, for "LOL @ this fucking nerd".

While I disagree with Apple's policies (and really hate their behavior as a company), there's nothing anticompetitive about this.

Vote with your money and don't buy an iPhone.

As Rand would put it:

> “Free competition enforced by law” is a grotesque contradiction in terms.

I see this a lot. If I sold someone a computer that was a metal case full of crush-n-run and they sue me and win. It's not clear to me why Apple is exempt.

I have no idea what you mean or what your example is all about. You basically couldn't have given a worse analogy or example.

Sigh, this is exactly the rule Apple once falsely rejected iSH for. It’s disappointing to see that they’re still applying their convoluted rationale to take down legitimate apps based on the actions their users take inside the app. As I wrote earlier:

> For example, iSH was once rejected with the rationale that “During review, your app installed or launched executable code, which is not permitted on the App Store.” The template itself clearly outlines the case it is meant to apply—an app that is installing code by itself, to bypass review—but in the case of iSH the reviewer chose to install code and then complained that the app did what they told it to do.

I can see the arguments from https://saagarjha.com/blog/2020/11/08/fixing-section-2-5-2/ applying here.

When I was younger, my family couldn’t afford a laptop, but I have the distinct memory of wanting to learn to code on the iPads at my school, and being unable to find any app which would let me just write and execute programs. Looking around the App Store now, there do seem to be a couple of apps which would allow this, but it’s still really disappointing to see this kind of removal. The majority of kids these days will likely use a phone lots more than they use a laptop. For those who want to learn to code, why doesn’t Apple make it easier?

Apple, like most corporations, is happy to entertain passive consumers. After all, empowering people to learn new things about computers could lead to healthy competition, and that's definitely not something we want, or is it?!

I doubt Apple cares about people that need to "work" on their machine anymore. Those people will buy PCs because a lot of industrial software is still Windows only and Apple shows no interest in changing that. Modern Apple products feel more like toys for adults (in a non-lewd way).

Well, Apple needs a pool of talented developers to build apps on their platform. And to hire from.

I don't think that's the case so much. Apart from key elements, most workers in tech companies have no clue what they're doing. They're just a tiny cog in the machine, and they feel that way.

Likewise, most people who graduate from Computer Science curriculum have no idea what they're doing. They're very knowledgeable about specific problems (eg. some graph algorithms, analog electronics, programming language theory) but fail to conceive computing as an ensemble of ethical and usability concerns.

You know how it took thousands of people to build the first atomic bomb, and most of them had no clue what kind of evil force they were working on? Computing industry is like that most times, except of course in the free software ecosystem, where it does happen but community cooperation enable more skill sharing and more perspective about software from a political perspective.

The noughties dream of 'digital natives' has not ever come to fruition. Children growing up around technology has not brought great understanding of computing/creating software, instead it has driven a race to the bottom for passive apps, with predatory attention grabbing mechanics.

Young people today have grown up post computer. Evening owning a desktop is rare for non-gamers.

Most people I know have no mechanical sympathy for the computer nor ability to turn it off.

My (now passed away) Grandmother had better (but not great) than a lot of my-aged people I've explained things to - and thanks to basic on the BBC micro a long way back, way better abilities in terms of actually making the computer do what you want.

Well it has to some extent, but that's the minority seeing through the matrix. Just yesterday, i was reading here on HN about someone who learned how to make websites using just a smartphone! I can't say i wasn't impressed.

Also worth noting, we can still realize our dreams of digital natives around us. Build academies, hackerspaces and whatever kind of non-profit entity/space will enable you to teach hacking to uninitiated folks.

I think what you say is true to an extent. The barrier to entry is significantly lowered thanks to the internet, so thankfully it's not just caucasian males at universities who have access (like during the first computing explosion in the 70s and 80s).

Sadly though I think that there will always be a significant majority of the population who don't care how their world works, and hope only to consume media and distractions to avoid the unpleasantness of our world.

The next update to Swift Playgrounds is supposed to allow full iOS app development and submission to the App Store with no Mac involved.

Look also at Pythonista and a-shell for useful, if limited, programming environments. Both work by translating code into JS or wasm.

> The next update to Swift Playgrounds is supposed to allow full iOS app development…

May or may not be pedantry, but it’s not allowing the UIKit APIs, only SwiftUI. Still possible to make a full app, but on top of the IDE features that it lacks from Xcode, it’s specifically shutting out important parts of current iOS app development in 2021.

That’s not to say there’s not good reasons for it too, but it’s worth pointing out.

FWIW, Swift Playgrounds currently allows apps to load any library–I would be surprised to see technical restrictions preventing the use of UIKit. App review might not like it, but other than that it doesn't seem like there would be much stopping it.

Kids can get a Pinebook for $100, and a rpi+power source+keyboard+cheap touch display for less than $50.

Absolutely, this is what we eventually did, and I’m immensely grateful for the current ubiquity of low-cost hardware :) it’s just discouraging to me that Apple takes such a hard line on this

In my case, I've got a random 30 eur (~$25?) Chinese netbook over Ali-whatever with Android and 1GB. Totally outdated specs, but with Fdroid (huge repo off libre apps) and Termux (tmux, Perl, clang, lynx...LOTS of CLI libre tools) it makes an amazing machine for the price of two hard-cover books.

EDIT: mocp under Termux works, so is not as limited as I tought.

Apple's tablet/phone branch and social media people want customers and "sharers", not producers.

Their iOS and i-thingy announcement videos pretty much always feature "producers" very heavily, and the features and software they release and maintain often focus on making things. What's the deal with that?

There is Swift Playgrounds, along with a host of web-based tools. Not ideal for sure, but someone like you could still _learn_ coding from an iPad.

Because if the iPad can be used as a computer, there's very little reason to buy a Macbook. It makes no financial sense.

It'd also allow apps to dynamically load external software, which could be used as a bypass for Apple's stringent app store requirements.

The iPad Pro and magic keyboard costs more than the MacBook Air. So apple would be doing pretty well if they could get MacBook users to buy an iPad.

and also weigh more than the MacBook Air

If macbooks were gone tomorrow, the ipad would not replace it. Very different use cases. Sure, if you took an ipad, put OSX on it, and glued it to the hinges of a macbook as the screen - then maybe it'd be very similiar. Not great performance or battery life, but similiar. But in no way am I getting work done on an ipad touchscreen with a little flimsy foldable keyboard and kickstand.

This is outdated info. The latest iPad Pro has the M1 chip, exactly the same as the MacBook. And it comes in 8/16gb ram.

The magic keyboard accessory apple sells for the iPad also turns it in to the same form factor as a laptop.

You very realistically could replace a MacBook with an iPad Pro and magic keyboard if apple let people run macOS on it.

Quite literally if an iPad Pro ran MacOS there is absolutely no reason why this couldn’t be the case.

Wouldn't be much of a laptop, good luck using it on your lap

It works about the same as my actual laptop. That is, uncomfortable but technically possible.

As an iOS (and Android) user and developer since about the iPad2, iPads interest me less the more iOS shifts toward being a general-purpose OS. I wouldn't buy one with macOS or equivalent on it, even if it'd been modified to work well on touch screens. At that point I'd probably get the cheapest large Android tablet I could find as a PDF reader, and just... not do the other stuff I do with iPads at all, I guess.

Honest question - what do iOS users do in such situations? I'm using Android and we can always install things from outside the store, or even from alternative stores (eg. F-Droid). Is there any similar solution? If the app is open-source, can you at least build it yourself and sideload it as if you are the developer and you're testing your app? What solutions are there?

It is possible to sideload apps on iOS, it just requires jumping through hoops that you don’t have on Android. Apple allows sideloading of apps signed by the same Apple account that you’re signed into on your iDevice.

Since this is really intended to make developing iOS apps more accessible, it requires resigning or rebuilding apps. Since iDOS is open source, that should be no problem here - you can compile and install your own copy, likely just by loading the upstream project in Xcode and deploying it your iDevice like app developers do. A usability problem is that apps installed this way are only runnable for a week [0], at which point the signature must be refreshed or iOS will refuse to open the app.

AltStore [1] is a project that streamlines this ordeal as much as possible. It’s an alternate app store that allows you to install a bunch of open source apps not allowed in the app store (e.g. apps using permissions that would be rejected, or game console emulators). It also comes with a server component that uses Apple’s frameworks on Mac/Windows to refresh those apps’ validity on iDevices on the same network. If you regularly connect your iDevice to a network with an AltServer of your own, the apps should continue to work.

It’s certainly not pretty, and very far removed from fare more open Android devices, but workarounds to run your own software on iDevices do exist. There’s an entire subreddit, r/sideloaded, dedicated to this apparently mostly for piracy purposes.

[0]: Unless you pay for the Apple Developer Program, which has much longer limits. This limit is for free accounts.

[1]: https://altstore.io/

An additional limitation is that you can only have three such applications installed at a time. You also aren't going to be able to get access to functionality like push notifications (which might be obvious) or network extensions (which might not be: you have to have a paid developer account to develop/install a custom VPN for iOS; I find this limitation particularly frustrating, as it seems to mostly serve the purpose of helping authoritarian governments, and it isn't like Android has such a restriction so we know it isn't "par for the course": they are going above and beyond here).

They rationalize no longer being able to do something they used to be able to do, for no real practical or technical reason, as actually being a good thing.

Hence the newspeak of "sideloading" being accepted as opposed to recognizing it as a frankly outrageous and capricious policy designed to encourage an unknowing and comatose userbase.

I don't rationalise it as a good thing. I think there are many things to consider when buying a phone and this is just one of them.

Lately Apple started mandating that apps like telegram or discord must make it impossible for iPhone users to see nsfw content, which has tipped the balance towards android for me. For the first time in many years I'm using an Android phone. But as I said, one of all the factors to consider.

It’s a bit more nuanced than that - NSFW content can still be shown but the app needs to express a 17+ age rating on the App Store. That’s why apps like the Reddit client Apollo[1] and Google Chrome[2] are 17+.

[1] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apollo-for-reddit/id979274575

[2] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-chrome/id535886823

They also cannot show a switch to allow viewing NSFW content inside the app, similarly to how apps can't mention other payment methods in-app.

You can sideload the app yourself - but the account can only have 3 devices, and the app expires and stops running weekly for a free account or every 90 days (iirc - it's been awhile since I entered this particular dumpster fire) for a paid account. This is to prevent you as a developer from using your provisioning profile to backdoor-distribute software to end-users.

The largest loophole still is probably Enterprise Distribution, which allows high-limits (long time, many devices) signing associated with an Enterprise account.

It’s a year for a paid account, 90 days through TestFlight.

Gave up. I was wishing WWDC21 bring something like this due the M1 iPads but all I got was a refresh on Playgrounds... It's frustrating but I'm still inside the garden, and getting more tired by the day.

iOS users have mostly chosen to accept the walled garden. If they hadn’t, they would be android users.


Some of them are children. Some need or prefer Apple's locked in stuff (iMessage.) Not to mention Android is a slow burning trash fire.

I've seen so many ignorant comments like this about iOS lately I'm on the fence about deleting my HN account. I think I'd be happier, and all the people here who keep defending Apple's abuse would be happier.

Android is a perfectly usable platform. Your comment is just as ignorant as these you criticize.

I never said it was unusable. MSDOS is also a perfectly usable platform full of bad ideas and ridiculous hacks.

Don't be ridicululous.

This assumes that users understand the implications of the garden they're buying into. For many there may be a strong bandwagon effect, and they don't fully grasp what they are losing.

I have an iPhone simply to facetime with my parents, who refuse to talk to anyone with a green bubble. You can't make this up. If I could use iMessage on any other device, I wouldn't have an iPhone. Apple knows this, and it probably scares the shit out of them.

What I don't understand is why so many devs choose to accept Apple's rules. These devs know full well that they will likely be f***** over like this in the end. Yet they still give Apple their business.

Much higher rate of sales (apps and IAP) and subscriptions than Android. Not sure how the ad market looks (I've not worked on ad-supported apps) but wouldn't be surprised if those—at least in some categories—also pay so much higher that they're more lucrative on iOS, too, despite the smaller user-base.

Because people use iOS devices, and they want these apps.

I think I largely understand the implications of the garden I chose, and I doubt there will be much anguish among my less technical family/friends about their loss when they fully grasp that they will never be able to run a DOS emulator on their iPhones.

The only reason we're talking about something as obscure as DOS is because it wasn't threatening. Now that people have raised awareness of the inconstency they're blocking it, like many other general purpose emulators.

Pretty much what you have just described, one needs to pay for the yearly premium of the iOS developer programme in order to run custom code on your own device. Bear in mind that iOS apps are compiled in Xcode so one also needs to own hardware that runs OSX.

There are also people offering to sign you app with an enterprise certificate for a fee in the more dodgy corners of the internet but Apple is known to crack down on those once in a while as this obviously goes outside their ToS.

If the app's open-source, you can build it yourself, with restrictions on how long the app will function on your device before you have to reinstall it (one year IIRC for paid developer accounts, but only 7 days if you're not enrolled in the paid program).

If the app isn't open-source, you don't have any great options. Hypothetically, compiled apps from other developers can be re-signed just like apps you build yourself (see AltStore [1], which uses this technique), but those apps are still time-bombed and have to be periodically refreshed. The barrier to entry means you don't see a ton of apps around that do this; if something can't be compliant with App Store rules, it generally doesn't get made on iOS.

(There's also jailbreaking, and there used to be a decently-large community of developers building applications and tweaks for jailbroken iOS devices. That's gotten smaller both as Apple's made jailbreaking more difficult to maintain, and as new features in iOS have made much of the functionality people used to jailbreak for redundant.)

[1] https://altstore.io/

You can sign 7 apps a week for your own device with the tethered non-dev Apple ID. The certificates expire a week after, so you need to resign those 7 apps every week or they will stop working.

All of the "alternative" stores and distribution methods work with this mechanism, there is no better way and it is completely at Apple's whims.

Really, most interested users probably gave up at this point, looking at the decaying Jailbreak ecosystem.

You can only have 3 apps + 3 extensions installed on one device simultaneously, however.

The target audience for iOS devices does not care about running dos emulators with their custom binaries. Believe it or not, many people are okay with boundaries, especially when the promised and mostly achieved return is a reasonably stable and secure experience.

I've had a couple of apps disappear (one I know Apple removed, the others I think just suffered from bit rot). I guess it's the same as if my grocery store stops stocking some brand I buy. I'm bummed about it, but life goes on.

They bow to the will of the true owners of the device they are renting.

iOS requires apps to be signed with a certificate that chains to an Apple root of trust. The only way around this is jailbreak.

IMO this shouldn't be legal.

The latter as you said, compile it yourself.

Yes, like this https://altstore.io/

Great hackers know when to give up.

use Prompt or another mosh terminal emulator and ssh into wherever you want

For a DOS emulator? Does Prompt stream graphics?

Even just for coding, that sounds awful to me. iOS users bought a mobile device, and particularly if they're on an iPad Pro, a mobile device with a really good processor. For me, part of that would be being able to treat it like a mobile device, that it should keep working if I drive through a tunnel, that I should be able to use it on the go.

Hard for me to wrap my head around people being satisfied with "ignore that you have a well-built device with interesting sensors in front of you, and instead just use it as a thin client to another functioning computer."

There are cheaper thin clients out there than an iOS device if someone is OK ignoring their native hardware, doing all of their programming through a terminal, and having functionality break if their device goes offline.

I agree with you 100% - the situation sucks and I hope that these congressional hearings related to Apple being uncompetitive result in them being forced to allow multiple app stores and especially allow you to use a... mobile computing device for.... mobile computing. But I'm not optimistic.

Sent from my iPhone


Apparently they also are suffering from limitations with latest andoid version

I don't do anything. It's a phone, not a PC.

I got an iPhone because it does what it does well, and doesn't do other things at all.

iPhones are slick, costly and secure, at the cost of not being malleable.

It's a trade-off I made at purchase time and I know most users of both iPhone and Android never considered that tradeoff.

This argument reminds me why I loved windows phone so much. iPhones are computing devices that have a phone app while windows phone was a phone that happened to be a computing device.

My windows phone would get unplugged at 9am, and I’d party until the sun came up. Pretty much everything was disabled by then (by the battery saver), but I could still call a cab. Everyone’s iPhone was an expensive paperweight until someone located a charger.

I do agree with your statement today. iPhones have gotten markedly better at being a phone first and computing device second. It’s still got a ways to go, but my phone isn’t dead at 2am with battery saver on.

If apple allowed me to install a different store or easily side load you wouldn’t be negatively impacted

That is just not true, though. If Apple allowed different stores, then software would migrate to those different stores for various reasons, but probably because they had less restrictions. That would force you to install those less secure stores to use that software, and you would give up the security you gain from Apple taking a hard line on many kinds of bad behaviour on their own store.

But that software is clearly stuff you don't want and aren't interested in since it breaks Apple's restrictions so what's the problem? Just learn to live without it just like you've learned to live without emulators, IDEs, etc. in the App Store already.

Users that want the choice can choose. Devs that want the choice can choose. You can stay in your walled garden. And considering the uptake of alternate app stores on Android this seems like FUD to me.

Whether software offers something I want and whether software does shady things behind the scenes are often completely separate things. If it were allowed, I am sure a lot of the apps I use today would do shadier things. But it's not allowed, so they can't.

If they had the option of going to a less restrictive store, they probably would, and they would do things I am not happy with there. That would be a loss for me.

> If Apple allowed different stores, then software would migrate to those different stores… That would force you to install those less secure stores to use that software…

I think you’re underestimating the power of defaults. App developers know that the vast majority of users will not install an alternative app store, even if the platform allows them to. For proof, see the Android app ecosystem. There has been no migration from Google’s Play Store. There isn’t even a hint of store fragmentation. What you see is: 1) some OEMs run their own stores, which mostly rehost apps from Google’s store. These stores are not meant to be installed by arbitrary Android devices, so there is no chance that a user might feel compelled to install the store on their device. 2) F-Droid exists to host FOSS apps, some of which violate some asinine Google policy and as such are exclusive, but most of which are also available on the Play Store.

Basically, we have strong real-world evidence that allowing sideloading does not create app store fragmentation. If you want to argue against sideloading from a security standpoint, you’d be better served with the “sideloading allows an abusive spouse to install a keylogger/tracker on their partner’s phone” narrative.

I partially agree with you but I think the iPad breaks this rationale. They argue it's a computer so why won't they let it be?

Yeah, calling the iPad a PC is very short sighted by Apple.

Where is the next generation of developers going to come from, if they grow up on iPads?

But I feel the same towards Apples stance on server hardware, which they discontinued over a decade ago: Even if servers don't make a sizeable profit on their own, they help ensure that developers can build large scale stuff inside the apple ecosystem.

Yet, that hasn't really been the hindrance I feel it ought to have been.

> Yeah, calling the iPad a PC is very short sighted by Apple.

It's only shortsighted because they lock it down. It's got the same M1 hardware (if slightly less powerfull IIRC), and you can get an official keyboard+trackpad (and many third party ones), so the only thing that really keeps it from being a PC is their software installation policy that locks what can be run.[1]

1: Well, and also their policy of only allowing iOS to run on the hardware. This would be less of an issue if you could throw Linux, or even just Android on them. I'm sure Microsoft would be happy to ship an M1 ARM version of windows if they had hardware that would allow it to run.

> Executing code [...] allows for downloading of content without licensing.

These stupid limitation by Apple makes me really hope that there will be real competition in the tablet space. Android tablets basically failed because most apps are just bit phone apps. Windows tablet aren’t that successful either.

The thing is iPads offer good experience as a tablet but when you want from it a bit more Apple doesn’t allow it because of their Apps Store policies.

Personally I think iPad could be a great device for coding on the go. But the fact that we can’t install anything outside of apple’s control blocks this option.

RDP or SSH is nice but it relies on internet connection. I’d like to use the native power of the device. With M1 there’s no reason it wouldn’t be able to do so.

Their arguments about security to sounds more like bunch of excuses.

Microsoft doesn't break down sales figures, but overall their Surface business is a couple billion a year.

Surface Pros are about as good as you can get right now for a general purpose computer that is also a tablet and also are not incredibly expensive.

Agreed, Apple lost me (prior Air user) as a customer to the Surface, just because the value proposition of a touchscreen tablet computer - that’s actually a real computer - was so compelling.

Galaxy Tab devices work fine IMHO - I have a Galaxy Tab S6 and use it for many thing, including quite involved digital drawing with the desktop level Clip Studio Paint. It has a very good keyboard cover and can be easily connected to a full screen and keyboard/mouse with a HDMI dongle, which makes it switch to the desktop style DEX interface. You can also combine this with the Wacom One drawing tablet and get a really nice and flexible mobile drawing workstation.

Also in the future Steam Deck might actually fit the category! Like if you don't mind the extra knobs and controls it's basically a fully supported Linux tablet! :)

Their handling of this situation was not great, and I'm sorry for the author, but I was pleasantly surprised to see them explicitly point out exactly which rules where violated. What a stark contrast with the usual HN posts about apps being removed from the Play Store for vague reasons with little to no explanation. Google has a lot to learn.

I agree with you. The clarity in their response is commendable, even though I disagree with the policy itself.

FastCompany’s Harry McCracken and How to Geek worked together to publish an article on how to run windows 3.1 using iDOS 2 (and all your old games) on 12 July [0]. It his Mac news sites the same day. TWiT talked about running Win 3.1 and TRS-80 on iPad on 18 July [1].

The popularity of these articles and podcast may have shined a light on this bit of hackery. It sucks it is getting booted, but it’s largely interesting because it allowed you to do the thing Apple doesn’t want you to do.

[0] https://www.howtogeek.com/739100/how-to-install-windows-31-o...

[1] https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech/episodes/832

Apple can't enforce such basic App Store rules consistently, even when violations are deliberately and clearly mentioned in the submission... and we are supposed to believe that Apple can't allow other stores on the decice because THAT would compromise security...

Ok, so if the customer bought it before they took it down. I could use it for as long as I could?

Yes, as long as you don’t upgrade your phone. At some point an OS upgrade will break the app.

I'd like to know this as well. My guess is that you may have to install it on your device before it gets dropped from the Apple store.

Definitely have a cloud backup of your device enabled in case you need to ever reset your device so that you don't lose the app.

If you want to install it on another device things become more complex...

These rules are applied selectively. I know very popular apps that are loading interpreted code over https and executing it. Also, these same apps are exploiting a flaw in iOS in order to track users across apps and using the interpreted code to hide this.

Those apps are definitely in direct violation of app store rules, and would be removed if they were detected. If they have not been removed, it is because they were successful in hiding their rule breaking.

Technically, this rule prevents the use of jsonp (remember that?)

Not if it's run through a system webview (Safari) though, right? They only want interpreted code run through a VM they control so they can effectively restrict what it can do on the OS.

Seems like if you filled out the entitlements properly it should be allowed - informed consent.

But that's messed up if you did that.

Yet another sad story of Apple's incompetence at running an app store.

It's not incompetence if it's actually their rule. They are competently enforcing an arguably stupid rule.

Sure, if this was the first submission of the app, or the second. It isn't. It's had this feature and the intro explaining that it broke the rules from the get-go. But now, Apple suddenly backtracks it's decision to allow it AFTER the dev has already made sales based on the feature.

Apple should (in theory) give refunds for this, or make the developer whole somehow, because the dev's reputation is screwed.

No, they are incompetently enforcing the rules because the "not allowed" functionality was added a while ago and explicitly mentioned to the reviewers. The update review that triggered the removal was just bug fixes.

Apple and Google have consistently shown that they are poor stewards of the mobile app distribution market, having kept an iron grip on the market for over a decade now.

Consumers would benefit from real competition and disruption in this space, as competition increases efficiency and lowers costs.

643 billion dollars worth of incompetence over the year 2020. <https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/06/apple-developers-grow...>

How large is the Big Mac market? Surely larger than Kobe beef market, right?

People using iPhones are consenting to Apple deciding what programs they are allowed to run. It may be OK for some people, but not for me. I feel the MacOS is moving int the same direction.

I bought the original iDOS, but it no longer runs and you have to buy iDOS 2.

I think I'll stick with running DOSBox in a browser.

no soup(general computation) for you!

See also: The Digital Imprimatur, https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

iOS devices are "consoles," not computers.

iOS is such a shit platform I'm surprised anyone tolerates it.


Any web browser based app runs executable code ffs.

You are not allowed to submit a web browser to the app store with your own javascript interpreter.

There's no firefox on iOS?

Firefox (and every other 3rd party browser) internally uses the same web rendering engine as Safari. Rolling your own renderer + JS engine is not allowed.

Apple let’s you take the naked core of safari, stripped of chrome, and slap a skin on top.

No. But there is a "Firefox" shell around WKWebView.

All iOS web browsers use a web view backed by Safari.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact