iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
Apple’s rejection of the iDOS 3 DOS emulator from the App Store has reignited criticism of opaque, inconsistent review practices and the power Apple wields over software distribution on iOS. Commenters highlight contradictions in how rules like “no executing external code” are enforced, the lack of clear guidance to developers, and the difficulty of appealing decisions. Many argue this gatekeeping justifies stronger regulation such as the EU’s Digital Markets Act, broader support for alternative app stores, or government-run appeal mechanisms, while others worry such intervention could hinder innovation or worsen bureaucracy.
Opaque and Inconsistent App Review
- Many describe Apple’s review process as arbitrary, inconsistent, and poorly justified.
- Calls for Apple to expose full internal review history and rationale to developers, including past decisions on the same app.
- Reports of apps being repeatedly rejected for shifting reasons, or for things previously approved, and even being blocked after “too many attempts.”
- Some argue opacity is intentional to preserve Apple’s power and avoid accountability; others say it may simply reflect messy internal discussions.
- A minority view defends some secrecy (e.g., not revealing fraud/spam detection signals), but agrees that good‑faith developers should get clear explanations.
Apple’s Motives and Reputation
- Debate over whether Apple’s decisions are guided by “public good” vs. revenue and market power.
- Several comments point to leaked communications and product design (e.g., low repairability, tight ecosystem control) as evidence that profits dominate.
- Others note that Apple’s and users’ interests often align, but warn this shouldn’t be mistaken for altruism.
Legal and Regulatory Context (DMA, Antitrust, Tribunals)
- Some argue Apple’s blocking of competing or alternative-distributed apps should be illegal; EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) is cited as already pushing in that direction.
- Disagreement over whether the DMA “stifles innovation” by making some new iOS features legally risky vs. simply requiring interoperability and fair APIs.
- A few propose independent government tribunals or ombudsman-like bodies to hear appeals of app-store rejections, with mixed reactions on whether this would help or add bureaucracy.
- Note that even under DMA, Apple has reportedly rejected iDOS and UTM for third‑party stores, suggesting enforcement and/or law text is still evolving.
Rule 2.5.2, Emulators, and Notarization
- iDOS and UTM are rejected under guideline 2.5.2 (no code that changes app functionality), yet multiple terminal/shell apps on the App Store clearly execute arbitrary code.
- This is cited as strong evidence of selective or inconsistent enforcement, especially against emulators.
- Some see Mac notarization drifting from malware control into app‑review‑like gatekeeping.
Alternatives, Workarounds, and Developer Responses
- Developers complain about time‑consuming submission pipelines on both Apple and Google, leading some to favor PWAs or open platforms like Android despite their own issues.
- Sideloading/workarounds (AltStore, Sideloadly) exist but come with practical limits (device, time, or possible jailbreak questions) and are seen as second‑class options.
- Several view becoming “big enough to get a real explanation” from Apple as an unfortunate new status marker.