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.
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.
I have a hunch about the real purpose of all of this. I wouldn't be surprised if this has been discussed already, so please excuse if I am not up to date.
UTM SE is a virtual machine. Virtual machine allow running things under the user's control. Apple being Corporate does not want that. They don't want things they don't control because that hurts their profit and public image. So it seems they just forbade JIT under some esoteric rationale. UTM SE called that bluff by submitting a virtual machine without JIT even this being a bad idea performance-wise.
Of course Apple has no qualms of running their own virtual machines themselves. Because, duh! They aren't against virtual machines... They are against loss of control!
I'm a long time Apple fan and user but I very much dislike their App Store and its policies. In principle, a fair and open App Store (outside of things like porn and illegal activities) make sense. But it's neither. It's used as a crutch to beat developers with and actively harm users.
I'd much rather they fix their policies than be forced to by the government. But they don't actual care about the users, and so I can't wait until the US does what the EU did (even if its not the best solution).
I’ll take a stab at answering this. Business and moral reasons likely.
Porn has a high rate of charge backs. Increased credit processing fees. Expensive to work with processors who allow it.
Porn can carry legal implications. Are there any non consensual images? Children in them or viewing them? Revenge porn? AI deep fake porn? Who wants to associate their products and company alongside porn?
Different countries and localities have different laws. Are you going to legally complaint? Will this lead to legal consequences for you or your users?
Then I will make a moral argument. Porn sucks. I grew up with porn, I am not a puritan, I understand some people do it as a job to scrape by or even to make a lot of money. I also understand not everyone shares my moral values. That said, I can’t think of a single thing having endless firehoses of porn available everywhere 24/7 has done for society. Seems to permeate relationship expectations, kids are asking in school what the best way to choke a girl is now for example. Porn titallates the senses until it doesn’t and then you start looking for stronger porn instead. It saps motivation and sure seems to have shaped modern western society. I could go on but I’ve made my point and need to hop off the soap box.
These reasons I would see as applicable. In essence, reputational damage.
I agree with the chargeback and legal reasons, and I think those are valid enough reason for Apple to restrict porn from showing up in the App Store.
POTENTIAL TMI:
The moral reasons? I'm not so sure; sample size of one, but I was a pretty typical 13 year old boy with the internet and engaged with it, and my sexual tastes are pretty vanilla and haven't changed much in the last twenty years. I don't think it necessarily follows that having lots of access to porn leads to a desire for harder and harder porn. I never wanted to watch scat porn of rape roleplay or anything crazy like that.
I think porn is pretty bad for young people in general, I think it does objectify people and creates unrealistic and bizarre standards (for all genders, but disproportionately women), and I think a lot of it is exploitive, so I'm not really trying to defend the porn industry. It's pretty shady.
I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. Just from observing the platform rules and their review outcomes, this is what the expected result would be, regardless of what we want, wish or would find agreeable, even if Apple's reasoning is flawed or incompetent.
I do wonder what the SE version would do without JIT for pure in-architecture virtualisation since there is arm64 software out there that would run just fine (with no JIT). Right now it seems it's all pure QEMU and JIT and not much else. Or maybe I don't understand the relationship between Apple's HV, the HV options for UTM, QEMU and the requirement for JIT at all. There don't seem to be any builds without JIT but with HV.
I'm not personally surprised. To me, this is like the Fortnite case where the discourse has suddenly moved from hypothetical doomposting to a concrete scenario.
The "it's rejected, but it wasn't good anyway" paragraph at the bottom is perplexing.