Administered by:
Apple, fuck right off. *You* decided notarization would be an approval process, and you inserted yourself in it, which means yes *you approved this app*.
Much like you didn't approve a bunch of other apps, like emulators.
Shame on Apple-affiliated sites for regurgitating this crap, once again. You're knowingly and willingly lying to your readers on behalf of a company that would happily eat you for breakfast
https://9to5mac.com/2025/02/03/apple-forced-to-approve-porn-app-on-eu-iphones-due-to-dma/
@stroughtonsmith You do know that "approving" something and "approving of" something have different meanings?
@ldrydenb at no point did anybody state Apple ‘approved of’ the app. They're the ones introducing that distinction, and wrongly suggesting that people are lying or being deceptive. Regardless of Apple's intent to deceive people into coming to its defense, the app is ‘Apple-approved’, end of story
@stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb they strongly imply it. I am sure a competent corporate lawyer would have warned them:
@Migueldeicaza @stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb But that’s the whole point - Apple decided any non-App-Store-app would require their approval, therefore if this app ships, Apple has approved it.
If iOS notarisation was anything like macOS app notarisation (automated, takes literally 1 minute) then sure, I’d say calling it “Apple-approved” would be misleading. But by all accounts, iOS notarisation is not that. It’s app store review without the app store.
@pmdj @Migueldeicaza @stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb The EU has made it clear that Apple will be punished if they reject apps for policy reasons (see emulators and VMs)
@kylehalevi @pmdj @Migueldeicaza @stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb Apple is free to not operate in the EU. No one is forcing them.
@danielinoa @pmdj @Migueldeicaza @stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb Absolutely. But that does not change the dynamics that make the claim of “Apple approved!” clearly misleading.
@Migueldeicaza @stroughtonsmith @danielinoa @pmdj @kylehalevi @ldrydenb But they have denied emulators and such. They even ban usage of a specific technology (JIT) that makes emulators possible.
@kylehalevi @pmdj @Migueldeicaza @stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb Unfortunately they haven't yet been punished for this. They rejected UTM with JIT already, they held up Epic Games Store already... I'm hoping we see some lawsuits that get Apple punished but the lack of action so far isn't promising.
@amonduin @kylehalevi @pmdj @stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb blocking JITs is a long-standing security feature.
@Migueldeicaza @kylehalevi @pmdj @stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb Which, in the EU, Apple shouldn't be able to block. They give themselves special entitlements to support JIT but no one else. This is likely against the DMA. They can claim it's about security all they want, but as long as they can do it for themselves they are likely running afoul of the new rules.
@amonduin @kylehalevi @pmdj @stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb they can, they have that latitude due to the DMA requirement to keep the system secure.
@Migueldeicaza @kylehalevi @pmdj @stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb Apple keeps using this excuse. From what I have discovered JIT on iOS would lock the generated code inside of the app in question, this is in addition to the app sandbox that already offers a good level of security.
However cybersecurity isn't my area of expertise so I'll bow out for now.
@saagar @amonduin @kylehalevi @pmdj @stroughtonsmith @ldrydenb true, they can make up rules as they go.