Yes.
If a developer’s license specified that one was not allowed to run their software on emulated or translated systems, that would be fully within their rights. Given that Rosetta 2 does not translate all software, there are certainly cases where that would make sense (primarily to prevent support costs for a platform where there will be problems that might not be immediately apparent).
This is legal under a specific exemption in the DMCA, not as a general rule and it is not the equivalent of an iOS app you already own, as you do not own any iOS app, just license it.
I am not complaining about anything. If the rights holders do not care, I certainly do not. I would rather have Mac versions that are actively supported, and I think things like WINE versions, Electron-apps and what we are discussing here all make it less likely we will get really native macOS versions.
Apple is not blocking applications for which the developer allows access, it is simply enforcing the developers license. Yes, as long as the developer has chosen not to allow this, they have every right to do so, and Apple is doing the right thing enforcing it.
Using licenses and copyright to restrict consumer use is a problem though. Also, thank you for citing the DMCA but, and I say this as an American, the US isnt the whole world - a lot of countries that dont have as much of Disney et al ramming increasingly restrictive copyright, fair use, and generally consumer hostile repair and use laws through their legislatures have more permissive legal systems.
Just because our current laws allow the kind of consumer restrictions doesnt mean they should. As you said there are carve outs in the DMCA, there should be more (really the law should be scrapped, it was crap when it was new and it’s crap now. It and other laws like it pervert the whole point of copyright and fair use for, mostly large, businesses gain at the cost of the consumer and public domain)
And WINE is the exact same case btw, I’m not talking about actual incorporated-into-the-app use, I’m talking about things like running steam under WINE to play Skyrim on a Mac. Bethesda doesnt support Skyrim on Mac, but you can get it to work pretty decently. Bethesda doesnt actively stop you, but they arent going to support it either, and neither will Valve (I should note that undercuts the whole content piracy argument going on about netflix in this thread too: WINE doesnt enable more piracy from steam than already existed)
Using licensing to restrict consumers from using software they paid for how they wish is a crap practice, it’s not legal everywhere, and I’m surprised to see so many people defend it here.
There is a collision on this thread between people who it seems want a more iOS-like experience on a Mac and those of us who want a more open platform like we were used to until Apple introduced iOS apps into the mix.
Until this point every restriction supplied, like officially signed apps, was customer controllable and had the ability to turn off the restrictions if one wished. That should be true of these applications too. If I paid for the app the developer shouldnt get to dictate that I can’t use it on my mac. I don’t expect them to support it, but the system shouldnt actively work against me. There’s actually an anti-trust argument to be made here in that Apple is engaging in anti-consumer practices and taking on the role of enforcing licensing that they normally wouldnt because they also own the app store. When split off, for ex Steam, there’s no collusion between the OS provider and the App store provider in restricting the use of the computer. Enforcing licensing of third party software and OS level restrictions based on that is a significant step farther into anti-consumer behavior than we’ve typically seen in general computing before. Just because it’s legal in the US doesnt make it good practice or any less toxic to consumers. And again, I say this as a software developer.
