Apple to Pull 'iDOS 2' DOS Emulator From App Store

[Jessica Lares]

You can read JavaScript line by line and know what it's doing. Same applies to whatever you're running in iSH and all the other shells.

You cannot read a .EXE, a lot of the ROM files you'd want to run in an emulator, they were designed to not be. That is the problem and why an app that executes a plaintext file isn't @mrz.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Its dumb that one needs to buy a PC or extra android device along with their Apple gear to have a computing life without limits. Most limits are imposed by Apple and not the rest.

Nope, not need to buy an “extra android device”, just one. You want options that Apple has never offered on iOS, so why are you surprised they are not there.

All these modern devices are capable of so much more than Apple allows us to use them for and it will get worse after they put M1 chips in all their devices. It will be very clear how much control Apple imposes when the device will be fast enough to do just about any computing function but the user is locked out of such functionality. Golden handcuffs.

You want a more open platform, buy the one that supports that. That Apple makes hardware with more headroom to enable it to remain useful longer, has nothing to do with its openness.

 

[Alan Wynn]

And this is the direction they seemingly want to take macOS as well...

There is zero evidence that is the case, and they have repeatedly said it was not. However, it if fortunate for you that you can buy Microsoft Windows and Android (both the dominant platforms) and not have to deal with any of these limitations!

 

[Shirasaki]

Free country means freedom to express yourself or run your business how you want more so than in other places. For Apple this means this. I don't agree with what they do. I don't even think it's fair to devs, since I've seen how app store rules are applied selectively and how they cowardly carry out the media's witch hunts against devs. But they have the right, and I have the right to ditch them (which I have as a dev and a customer but not as a user).

To all these people parroting "just switch to Android," keep it up, you're right. I also hope some people actually switch to temper Apple's arrogance.

I see you already saw the quote by another member. I’ll bring a new one here: the extreme of one side is the other side. I dunno if Apple knows the innate risk by going to an extreme, but such pursue is dangerous.

Also, I call the choice between android and iOS a “paradox of choice” or “pick the poison”. They are so similar these days what iOS/android attracted users are going away as time goes on. I fully expect you disagree with this notion, but Apple should not be able to literally do whatever they want.

 

[aevan]

Those of us who ask for sideloading, this is another big reason why.

We should be able to run software on hardware we own even if it goes against Apple's moral code.

There are many benefits to sideloding, this is certainly one of them, and they all fall down because security trumps them all. Once you get sideloading, even if you could opt out, life would force you to get one of these apps sooner or later and then you’d be at total mercy of, say, Facebook or whoever. And forget about things like “Ask not to track” for any Google app. Why not ask for less restrictions in the app store instead? If you want sideloading, you’re really on the wrong platform.

 

[lovely666]

Just use Android if you want options.

So sick of this pointless, useless comment.

How about you go use another forum. (Is about as rude).

People are free to comment on whether or not they agree with apple or not. And this comment is made every time i read anything that is at least critical of apple. It's so sad it's almost a meme.

How about you contribute something constructive, rather than just rehashing the same tired unconstructive line again and again. We know we know, we have options. But i suspect this isn't the real reason for this tired line being trotted out again and again.

I suspect for many of us, we like apple devices, but we don't like many of apple practises, we prefer to use apple devices. And personally I don't like android devices.

So it isn't an option for me. I rather apple allow side loading, than using android.

Remember kids apple is a big big big company, and you may like them overall, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they do.

 

[lovely666]

It is interesting that apple doesn't allow user loaded executable code in apps. Yet allows chrome.

But maybe chrome is only allowed because it uses apple's javascript engine.

So if you convert iDos to create webasm byte code and then ran that in apple's javascript engine would it be allowed?

 

[tf_dc]

There are many benefits to sideloding, this is certainly one of them, and they all fall down because security trumps them all. Once you get sideloading, even if you could opt out, life would force you to get one of these apps sooner or later and then you’d be at total mercy of, say, Facebook or whoever. And forget about things like “Ask not to track” for any Google app. Why not ask for less restrictions in the app store instead? If you want sideloading, you’re really on the wrong platform.

Who, for the sake of all gods, can force you to install an application you don't reasonably trust (or you are talking of physical coercion?)?! Why the same app from the app store is any bit better - store is full of trash of all sorts, and the quality of Apple checks is well-known?! People, tell me, if you ever used any computing devices, but locked-up phones - how did you survive having that absolutely terrible option of installing the software you had to choose yourself?! Having the outrageous duty to check whether the source of a software is trustworthy or even (oh my!) setting up a sandbox!? Balancing convenience and security/privacy yourselves, oh the abyss of inhuman horror?! Life is so terrible! Some people, just imagine, even write software themselves or compile it from source, and they don't pay Apple for the certificate to be able to run it for more than 1 week! How to live now with this blasphemous knowledge?

 

[lovely666]

There are many benefits to sideloding, this is certainly one of them, and they all fall down because security trumps them all. Once you get sideloading, even if you could opt out, life would force you to get one of these apps sooner or later and then you’d be at total mercy of, say, Facebook or whoever. And forget about things like “Ask not to track” for any Google app. Why not ask for less restrictions in the app store instead? If you want sideloading, you’re really on the wrong platform.

My problems with this argument is because security does work like this: Security is usually applied with a slice of cheese model, each layer provides security, but security isn't perfect so you have many layers of cheese, in hopes that one of the them catch it.

In this case the operating system should provide the majority of the security. It should prevent tracking, access to private data etc. The app store is a secondary level, and like wise the app store isn't perfect.

Yes having more layers is better, but apple blocking all apps would be even better. It's always a choice.

Sideloading allows the user to reduce a layer security for the added freedom. It's risk vs reward choice.

Saying that life will force you into it, is incorrect. If an app you want is in the sideloaded app store only, let's call it "evil store" (because that fits with your narrative). It's your choice to refuse to use it. At the moment the only apps that would be in the "evil store" would be apps that couldn't get on the apple store.

However if there is competition in the sideloaded market, then an app store that is better, and more secure/safer than the apple store may come along. Competition allows for innovation.

 

[I7guy]

If there was ever a case for sideloading, this is it right here.

To run pirated games?

 

[Steve Adams]

It is interesting that apple doesn't allow user loaded executable code in apps. Yet allows chrome.

But maybe chrome is only allowed because it uses apple's javascript engine.

So if you convert iDos to create webasm byte code and then ran that in apple's javascript engine would it be allowed?

Chrome on iOS is just a skin put over safari. Nothing more.

 

[Wildkraut]

To run pirated games?

You and your piracy excuses, find a better one.

 

[I7guy]

You and your piracy excuses, find a better one.

Don’t have to. It’s a perfect example.

 

[Wildkraut]

Chrome on iOS is just a skin put over safari. Nothing more.

Exactly, on iOS all browsers are forced to use Apples build-in safari webkit engine.
That way they can keep controlling the web, too. Or anticompetitively pull the trigger at web game streaming, e.g by making it crash, timeout, lagg etc..

The day they get caught, like with the battery fiasco, it will be a surely just bug, and it will be very hard to fix that bug, and they will try multiple times to fix that bug.

 

[Wildkraut]

Don’t have to. It’s a perfect example.

Yeah sure f-droid is full of piracy.
Yeah Epic Store is full of piracy.
Yeah GOG Store is full of piracy.
Being able to have a Gecko powered original Firefox Browser is pure piracy.
Being able to to have a Browser to load up uBlock is piracy.
Being able to compile binary with alternative compilers is pure piracy.
Being able to load already bought DOS classic games (which is still have) is pure piracy.
Being able to run my own CDN and Store is pure piracy.
Being able to even run stuff like brew.sh would be pure piracy.
Being able to run a decent terminal is pure piracy.
Being able to emulate Windows Games over something like Wine or Steams fork aka. Proton is pure piracy.
Being able to have a native clearly more performant Game Streaming App for XBox Cloud, Stadia, Geforce NOW is also pure piracy.
etc.

I could keep typing down the list till by fingers starts bleeding with non-piracy related sideloading benefits.
Sideloading would clearly benefit all users.

 

[ApeBot]

What "executables" is it running other than the DOS programs its emulating? How the hell do you run those otherwise?

Apple truly loves to control everything. And yes, this is why you need the ability to sideaload.

I could be wrong, but I think the issue here is more about licensing than being able to execute dos code in an emulator.

 

[richlyon]

While the rest of us would have to give up the privacy and security features, and the developers would give up the major defense on piracy. Not a great trade to me.

Gouging users 30% tax *is* piracy. I don’t “rent” software or purchase any from the App Store because of this. It’s also a significant reason why many people seek alternative sources which, if the developer doesn’t provide a direct purchase option, includes piracy. You can’t prevent piracy, but you can encourage Apple to forgo monopolistic renteerism (oh, and pay their taxes).

 

[benwiggy]

If executing code is forbidden, how is Pythonista a thing?

 

[aevan]

If an app you want is in the sideloaded app store only, let's call it "evil store" (because that fits with your narrative). It's your choice to refuse to use it.

What if you job pressures you to use it? What if the school your kids go to uses it to notify parents? What if your family uses it?

Sometimes it's not your choice. It's not that simple. Even people who are really angry at Apple's practices are generally against sideloading, when they understand the complexities. Of course, it doesn't mean we would have an apocalypse - just that the negative aspects of sideloading on iOS/iPadOS outweigh the good. And I say that as someone who would LOVE apps that Apple would never allow.

And I wouldn't call it "evil" or use any morality here (Apple is not "good" and the other store is not "evil") it's just dangerous.

 

[Admiralbison]

Those of us who ask for sideloading, this is another big reason why.

We should be able to run software on hardware we own even if it goes against Apple's moral code.

It’s not Apple’s moral code, it’s a threat to Apple’s App store profit code.

 

[aevan]

Who, for the sake of all gods, can force you to install an application you don't reasonably trust (or you are talking of physical coercion?)?!

Your boss might decide that the company is now using App XYZ to communicate from now on. You don't have to use it, but this is where the new exciting projects that bring promotions are going to be from now on.

Your kids' school might use App XYZ to notify parents of school events. You don't have to use it, you don't really have to know everything happening around your kids at school, do you?

You family and friends might use App XYZ to communicate. You don't have to use it, you can always wait for that holiday, right?

Also, maybe you do find a way to avoid using App XYZ, but maybe someone important to you does use it, and, maybe they get their data stolen or worse.

Now, we've had sideloading on Macs for decades and it's been fine. World won't end if this happens. But it will probably be worse. And for what? To play Fortnite?

Either way, for the sake of all gods, yes, a lot of factors can "force" you to install an application you don't reasonably trust. I never trusted Zoom, but I had to install it for work.

 

[theluggage]

It is interesting that apple doesn't allow user loaded executable code in apps. Yet allows chrome.

AFAIK every web browser on iOS is just a "skin" for the same built-in Webkit engine used by Safari.

So if you convert iDos to create webasm byte code and then ran that in apple's javascript engine would it be allowed?

Seems sensible on the surface - since you can download and run arbitrary webasm anyway, but that would be a question for Apple. It could still increase the "attack surface" by adding another route for code to get from the Internet into the javascript engine - the devil would be in the details.

This isn't about pretending that Apple's Javascript Engine is 100% secure - it can't be - it's about thinning out the hordes of security threats it might have to deal with.

I think people need to decide whether they want a hobbyist pocket computer/game console or a phone... because the first needs to be able to run arbitrary code while "phone" is rapidly becoming a synonym for "credit card, ATM, bus/train pass, ID card, computer unlock key, car keys, 2-factor authentication tool..." and really needs to be not able to run arbitrary code.

Currently, I have an Android phone partly because my instinct is that I want to install whatever I want - that was the reasoning a few years ago when I bought it. I'm increasingly needing to use it for 2FA, so I'd already be reluctant to install anything remotely suspicious on it, and the day on which I decide to start using it for payment and e-banking will probably be the day I finally switch to iPhone... not that I completely trust Apple, I just trust them a bit more than Google and/or a phone manufacturer who loads their Android phones with proprietary bloatware.

I guess Apple also have to worry about reputation, a problem that isn't dictated by logic: Here in the UK there was a bit of soccer a couple of weeks back which one of the main TV channels, ITV, live streamed, but their iOS/Apple TV app fell over and couldn't get up at a critical moment. Do you think the headlines were "ITV Player App fails during semi-final (oh, the humanity!)"? No, of course not, it was "Apple TV fails during semi-final (oh, the humanity!)". If some eejit sideloads some malware and has their bank account raided it will be "I lost all of my money because of scam iPhone App" not "I ignored security advice and got myself pwned". If someone writes an App to crack Netflix/Spotify/whatever then it's going to be more profitable to sue Apple than the Ruritanian teenager who actually wrote it. Look at the way "Kodi" - a perfectly legitimate bit of home theatre software - has become unfairly associated with piracy because of the profusion of third-party "crack" plug-ins.

There is a question over the App Store and anti-competitive behaviour (just not the nonsense of Fortnite et. al. wanting to have their cake and eat it) - but that should be a question of
improving Apple's transparency and consistency over what is allowed and maybe making them take a bit of financial responsibility when they change their mind. In this case, the problem seems to be that Apple made a mistake approving this app (which, duh! is all about running executable code) in the first place, and doing a U-turn on it after the fact certainly harms the users who have bought it, and maybe the developer (although I'm vaguely surprised that this developer didn't know about the executable code prohibition).

NB: or, join the 21st century and just run the code on a remote server and stream the results to any web browser (or download the transpiled webasm) -doesn't even need an app. Companies are doing it with modern 3D FPS games, so it shouldn't be a problem for 640x480 16 colour stuff! Don't want to maintain your own server? Make a server that you can run on your Mac or a Raspberry Pi.

 

[adib]

No, it is a bigger issue. JS runs in a highly sandboxed environment, basically untrusted since every random site you visit is going to be executing it. iOS apps are pretty well sandboxed but still granted way more privileges than JS running in-browser. For one, running in background.

But I'm guessing the ban has more to do with the potential for piracy than anything else.

There’s a hard limit of how long iOS apps can run in the background. Have a look at the API documentation.

 

[theluggage]

Your kids' school might use App XYZ to notify parents of school events. You don't have to use it, you don't really have to know everything happening around your kids at school, do you?

...and, of course, at the moment they'd get huge pushback if there was no App Store iPhone version and probably be forced to choose something that was in the App Store. Provide an easy way of sideloading, and they can push something written by the Principal's brother-in-law's teenage son. Which would have been a good choice in the 1980s, but with modern security/privacy issues, not so much in 2021.

Now, we've had sideloading on Macs for decades and it's been fine.

Well, it's been better than Windows, but that's a pretty low bar.

Reality is, phones are probably now used by a wider range of the population (e.g. anybody old enough to eat solid food) than desktop/laptop computers ever were. They're also increasingly becoming "security gatekeepers" for things like e-banking and two factor authentication - and from the privacy angle, your phone is sitting in your pocket, always-on, potentially tracking your every move and logging whoever you meet. You can sequester your PC/Mac behind your home firewall, but you really, really don't want an insecure phone.

 

[lovely666]

...and, of course, at the moment they'd get huge pushback if there was no App Store iPhone version and probably be forced to choose something that was in the App Store. Provide an easy way of sideloading, and they can push something written by the Principal's brother-in-law's teenage son. Which would have been a good choice in the 1980s, but with modern security/privacy issues, not so much in 2021.


Well, it's been better than Windows, but that's a pretty low bar.

Reality is, phones are probably now used by a wider range of the population (e.g. anybody old enough to eat solid food) than desktop/laptop computers ever were. They're also increasingly becoming "security gatekeepers" for things like e-banking and two factor authentication - and from the privacy angle, your phone is sitting in your pocket, always-on, potentially tracking your every move and logging whoever you meet. You can sequester your PC/Mac behind your home firewall, but you really, really don't want an insecure phone.

I agree with "Reality is, phones are probably now used by a wider range of the population", which is why sideloading should be an option with big warnings and etc.

However people have far too much faith in the apple review process, what do you think they do: disassemble your entire app and check and understand every line of it? Checking for possible exploits? nonsense

If anything the App Store is providing a false incorrect sense of security to users.

The attack surface is the same with or without side-loading, If apple knew there were certain issues/exploits with there operating system then they should patch them in the operating system, not check to see if apps were exploiting it in the review process.

Nothing stops a malicious developer from submitting an app to the app store.

All the app store does in terms of security is two things:
1) make the hackers/crackers reach a slightly higher bar when trying to distribute malicious apps. (but you see the junk on the app store).
2) allow apple to pull the app when it discovered it was doing malicious things.

People who don't understanding security, sandboxing and operating systems shouldn't really argue this whole security angle. Multi-users operating systems like ones used by 1000s of students and staff at universities have allowed multiple users to run there own compiled code for decades, without affecting each other.

Yes exploits are found, but that's always going to happen with the fast pace of software development. Just have to release frequent patches.

PS: windows is far better than it once was, at least it has UAC these days. (Problem is people don't understand it, nor do people understand why the mac is asking for their password)