In addition to updating its streaming music rules, Apple today also added games from retro game console emulator apps to the list of permitted software allowable under guideline 4.7. Guideline 4.7 permits apps to offer HTML5 mini apps and mini games, streaming games, chatbots, game emulators, and plug-ins.
Game emulators have managed to sneak onto the App Store several times over the years by using hidden functionality, but Apple has not explicitly permitted them until now. The rule change that allows for game emulators is worldwide, as is support for apps that offer mini apps and mini games.
Article Link: Apple Updates App Store Guidelines to Permit Game Emulators, Website Links in EU Music Apps
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Updates App Store Guidelines to Permit Game Emulators, Website Links in EU Music Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Under a set of guidelines that lays out the fees based on app type. Apple could very well raise the fees for developer accounts based on app type.
Under an unfair and anticompetitive set of guidelines, yes.
Subject to limitations imposed by law and scrutiny from regulators.
Example:
“gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation.
Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper provides to itself”
(…and where a circumvention of the law is attempted by moving these conditions down to the underlying layer of developer accounts instead of store pricing, regulation should and can adapt, i.e be extended accordingly)
Last edited:
Good points; however if Apple applied them broadly to classes of apps they would not be unfair or unjustified differentiation but rather recouping costs and benefiting from the value the App Store provides in terms of revenue opportunities. They already tier their cut based on revenue, this would be a refinement of such actions, IMHO. Apple has real costs to run the App Store, and covers most of them for free apps, so it would not be unreasonable for them to recoup those and make a profit since developers make a profit from being on the store if the charge for their apps.
Expecting Apple to get $99 for an app they may make millions or even hundreds of thousands selling via Apple's App Store would not be reasonable.
It seems pretty darn likely Nintendo would have a word with Apple just like with Valve. Availability on a relatively little used store versus one that’s the default for many millions of active users has very different optics.
When I buy music recordings, I buy a copy and right to store and play it.
I don‘t buy thin discs of plastic.
When I buy the music (through purchase in an app) and it is transmitted to me on discs of plastic, I trade directly with the Music store. Yet when it‘s transmitted to me electronically from the music store server (not Apple) to my device, I‘m forced to deal through Apple and they charge a commission?
Amazon can offer complimentary „AutoRip“ MP3 for free with my physical CD purchase - yet only due to getting rid of the physical disc do they have to pay commissions?
Not really (or primarily), no.
How much do Uber and Doordash, booking.com or Expedia, Amazon or Aliexpress/Temu make on purchases/orders in their iOS apps - and how much are they paying in commission to Apple?
It also doesn’t correlate with use Apple’s IP for delivery of their services. Transmitting to and playing an MP3 file on a computing device is trivial nowadays. Uber’s positioning system and messaging enabled by push services? Quite sophisticated.
It’s as reasonable for Spotify, Netflix or Match.com as it is for booking.com, Aliexpress, Temu or the Amazon store app.
They decided to cover these costs - cause it benefits their store and their hardware sales.
What they want is having their cake (free apps) while eating it (charge commissions) at the same time - while denying it to others (Core Technology Fee).
Last edited:
I see emoji warriors having run out of their allotted dislikes. again…
I’ve been saying all along emulators were the main reason most people wanted side loading. But, I do think Apple was doing the right thing by restricting them for as long as they did. Would I like to have them? Yes. Do I think it’s morally right to be able to play games I didn’t pay the content creator for? No
Yes I realize there are a handful of people who only play their own ROMs of games they own, but for every one of them there are a thousand who don’t.
Also just because there’s no way to legally buy a copy at the current time doesn’t make it right. The emulator community is the reason most games will never have a re-release, because many wouldn’t buy them when they already have the ROM for free, and that cuts into any profits the rights owner might have made from more obscure games
They did under the old EU rules. The new rules made it necessary to rethink how the App Store generates revenue.
As fro Amazon et.al. vs Spotify et. al. Apple has chosen to differentiate between sellers of physical goods and service vs. digital. If Apple's terms are too onerous they should forgo iOS and see who capitulates first. They want to acceess Apple's user base for free using Apple's resources, which is unreasonable.
You can do it already... MAME and ROM.
It was a great game.
Remakes never captured quite the same feel.
Impossible Mission was another addictive platformer/puzzle game.
Remakes had better graphics but never was the same ;(
sadly MAME isn’t one of the included cores in RetroArch - I just got all my Color Computer software back up and it would have been sweet to see all this work on my iPadPro on the go!
MAME is such an important part of preservation but I can also get IP in this area might be a bit tricker given the lasting quality of so many of these titles. while I totally appreciate the integration, this is definitely one of those times a separate MESS core would have been nice!
A signed Mame app on a iPad with an external controller would be a killer app. Considering for older games it doesn't need a lot of power, older iPads could be repurposed as game machines and even run an external monitor for a larger display.
I like this suggestion. Is it possible to switch off the iPad display when running off an external monitor?
