{"id":43685,"date":"2024-06-14T16:20:48","date_gmt":"2024-06-14T20:20:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=43685"},"modified":"2024-11-26T14:18:24","modified_gmt":"2024-11-26T19:18:24","slug":"utm-blocked-outside-app-store-via-notarization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2024\/06\/14\/utm-blocked-outside-app-store-via-notarization\/","title":{"rendered":"UTM Blocked Outside App Store via Notarization"},"content":{"rendered":"

Benjamin Mayo<\/a> (Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

App Review has rejected a submission<\/a> from the developers of UTM<\/a>, a generic PC system emulator for iPhone and iPad. <\/p>

The open source app was submitted to the store, given the recent rule change that allows retro game console emulators, like Delta or Folium. App Review rejected UTM, deciding that a “PC is not a console”. What is more surprising, is the fact that UTM says that Apple is also blocking the app from being listed in third-party app stores in the EU.<\/p>

As written in the App Review Guidelines, Rule 4.7 covers “mini apps, mini games, streaming games, chatbots, plug-ins and game emulators”. <\/p>

UTM says Apple refused to notarize the app because of the violation of rule 4.7, as that is included in Notarization Review Guidelines. However, the App Review Guidelines page disagrees. It does not annotate rule 4.7 as being part of the Notarization Review Guidelines. Indeed, if you select the “Show Notarization Review Guidelines Only” toggle, rule 4.7 is greyed out as not being applicable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

UTM<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple has reached out and clarified that the notarization was rejected under rule 2.5.2 and that 4.7 is an exception that only applies to App Store apps (but which UTM SE does not qualify for).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

This is confusing, but I think what Apple is saying is that, even with notarization, apps are not allowed<\/a> to “download executable code.” Rule 2.5.2<\/a> says apps may not “download, install, or execute code” except for limited educational purposes. Rule 4.7<\/a> makes an exception to this so that retro game emulators and some other app types can<\/em> run code “that is not embedded in the binary.” This is grayed out when you select Show Notarization Review Guidelines Only<\/strong>, meaning that the exception only applies within<\/em> the App Store. Thus, the general prohibition remains in effect for App Marketplaces and Web Distribution. But it seems like this wasn’t initially clear to Apple, either, because the review process took two months<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

This also seems inconsistent with the fact that the Delta emulator is<\/em> allowed to be notarized outside the App Store. It doesn’t make much sense for the rules to be more<\/em> lax within<\/em> the App Store. I first thought the mistake was that Apple didn’t mean to gray out 4.7 for notarization. Then everything would make sense. But the clarification states that 4.7 is not<\/em> intended to apply to notarization.<\/p>\n\n

The bottom line for me is that Apple doesn’t want general-purpose emulators, it’s questionable whether the DMA lets it block them, and even siding with Apple on this it isn’t consistently applying its own rules.<\/p>\n\n

kelthuzad<\/a>:<\/p>\n

If Apple can block what’s on “independent” third-party app stores, then the letter of the DMA may be violated or not, but its spirit is most certainly violated. Hope the EU cracks down on such malicious compliance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Steve Troughton-Smith<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Apple needs to read the terms of the DMA again; Apple can’t<\/em> reject UTM from distribution in third party marketplaces, in just the same way it can’t prevent Epic from building an App Store. App Review is going to land them yet another \nclash with the EU, and potential fine-worthy rule violation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Thomas Clement<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Sigh… what is even the point of third-party distribution if Apple is going to block whatever competition it does not want to see there?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Miguel Arroz<\/a>:<\/p>\n

This is so stupid. UTM is an essential tool for my work, running stuff I need 24\/7. This shows that 1. The EU didn’t go far enough in telling tech companies the products people buy belong to them and they must<\/em> be able to run whatever the hell they want on those products regardless of what some multinational company likes it or not, and 2. Every platform Apple makes is not targeted for real work and productivity except macOS and that’s mostly for historic reasons.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

UTM<\/a>:<\/p>\n

We will adhere by Apple’s content and policy decision because we believe UTM SE (which does not have JIT) is a subpar experience and isn’t worth fighting for. We do not wish to invest any additional time or effort trying to get UTM SE in the App Store or third party stores unless Apple changes their stance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

gorkish<\/a>:<\/p>\n

I remember the flash-in-the-pan moment where through some strange conflux of exploits and firmware features UTM on iOS was able to access full hardware virtualization support. It was a glorious glimpse into an alternate reality that we will likely never get to see again.<\/p>

I don’t have enough superlatives to express my disappointment when seeing all of that effort suppressed and restricted by Apple.<\/p>

When the UTM authors say “it’s not worth it” -- they may be onto something. Apple is slowly but surely beginning to be “not worth it” for me and for many other professional users.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n