iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

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.