Apple now allows retro game emulators on its App Store
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
>No, the new App Store policies won't get us emulators on iOS. Sadly this has been grossly misreported by basically everyone.
>The platform continues to be as unattractive for community emulators as ever.
>[...]
>Apple only wants emulators that offer in-app downloads
>[...]
>For 4.7.4: Sure, you could theoretically ship a list of the entire game library for a console. But what "universal links" would you even provide?
>And again, language reveals the intent: "software available in your app" means they don't want users to bring their own.
Apple would very likely counter by picking a nit about the distinction between ROMs (object code) and source code, though.
But there’s a (to me, quite pleasing) counter to this: support import of / repo sync with game “source code” projects… where the source code can just be ASM, and so a disassembly of an existing published game will work just fine.
This tactic is would push the responsibility for preventing IP theft off onto source code hosting services (e.g. GitHub… but self-hosted ones do exist, wink wink); and I think Apple’s lawyers would be pretty satisfied with that arrangement.
There are iOS apps in the App Store allowing you to run unmodified Linux i386 binaries, so I think that ship has sailed.
Of course Apple is only very weakly guided by precedent in their application review policies, as far as I can tell, so I don't think anybody can predict what they'll do in this case.
Nintendo could even just offer iOS versions of those Switch apps (not that I expect this, but maybe??) under these rules.
Just what the retro games sector was lacking: the ability to pay a monthly fee to play games made decades ago.
The whole premise is that you distribute a clean emulation platform and have the users torrent the roms from somewhere else. Trying to distribute them non-anonymously is a recipe for some trouble.
There is language about restrictions on downloads on offer inside apps
But that is very different from explicit language that in-app downloads must be the ONLY way to open content, which there is none
In fact all it says is that the "emulators can offer downloads", not that they must
It's normal for Apple rules to not clearly state what IS allowed, or to encourage things it allows explicitly
This seems more catered towards a Sega, Namco, or similar “Retro Game Collection” service, versus a third-party “drop in your own ROMs” app.
[0]: https://github.com/dolphin-emu/dolphin/blob/34527cadcce49a9a...
[1]: https://delroth.net/posts/emulation-crypto-keys-copyright-dm...
https://www.pcgamer.com/after-being-kicked-off-steam-dolphin...
It's kind of crazy that people still think it's ok that a vendor can determine what a user, who owns the product, can and cannot do with it.
Monopolistic practices are very profitable.
Of course Apple wants to put up barriers to entry, and to make decisions that make it hard for consumers to switch platforms.
Now, maybe people shouldn’t be allowed to make those tradeoffs, for their own good. But Apple owners are willing participants in a deal.
They are free to make those tradeoffs. If people want to keep using the Apple app store, or walled garden, or whatever, that's fine.
What instead people want to allow, is for other people to be able to use the products that they own in whatever way that they choose.
> It’s a great curated closed ecosystem
As long as other people can choose to use their Apple devices that they own in the way that they prefer, then that's fine.
Keep using that ecosystem. Other people should be free to use their devices however they wish though.
> You’re seeing people as helpless and they’re just not.
Users are not able to help themselves to use their own Apple devices how they want. In that sense yes, they are helpless to use their own Apple device in a way that they prefer.
Maybe let’s legislate a good-guys-only crypto back door while we’re at it.
If people want to control their own devices they should be allowed to do so.
> good-guys-only crypto back door
Or, how about instead of that, the people who want to stay in the wall garden are allowed to do that, and other people who disagree are also allowed to use their own devices however they want.
Problem solved.
Meanwhile on Android, transfer some files to local storage, point your emulation app to that director, and that's it.
"Additionally, retro game console emulator apps can offer to download games."
(followed by conditions that apply if you do offer to download games).
My reading is that retro game console emulator apps can offer to download games, not that they must to be considered for inclusion in the app store.
1. https://www.theverge.com/24100979/altstore-europe-app-market...
Apple is not going to touch letting an emulator in their store that isn’t published by Nintendo - just as valve didn’t.
I heard about it on a recent Decoder podcast. But this is the first reference I saw on the web.
https://kotaku.com/yuzu-nintendo-switch-emulator-steam-deck-...
This has absolutely zero legal relevance.
The courts have already determined this.
The only thing that is illegal is when emulator projects start distributing other companies marketing materials/IP or similar.
In particular, DRM circumvention technology is explicitly illegal to distribute in at least the US and EU, in a way that goes beyond regular copyright law. (The DMCA in the US has some exceptions specifically for video game archival purposes, though.)
Older games usually didn't have DRM in that sense; the concern back then was bootleg game copies, or unauthorized games [2], which the original consoles tried to detect and reject using "inverse DRM" techniques (i.e. the console authenticating the game, not the other way around). But newer games and consoles do explicitly feature DRM that might well be considered covered under the DMCA.
I don't think anyone can make qualified predictions on whether courts will find them legal at this point.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/05/the-solid-legal-theor...
[2] Nintendo and Sega tried to tackle that problem using trademark law, but were ultimately unsuccessful: https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/11736/why...
The counter argument to this misinterpretation of the case is addressed in the first sentence of your linked article.
"Dolphin's included decryption key is key to Nintendo's DMCA arguments."
So the point stands. There are absolutely ways to do emulation that is legal.
That I don't doubt at all. I'm just not sure all emulation is legal considering the DMCA.
I suspect that most of the rules were to prevent Sega or Nintendo getting pissy and start suing Apple.
Most 16-bit and earlier systems don’t have a BIOS.
I doubt that we are going to see many third-party emulator because of the ROM issue. To my knowledge, most consoles and all computers will have copyrightable ROMs built into the system. Given the relative scarcity of old hardware, equipment, and technical skills to image those ROMs any third-party emulator will attract copyright infringement. That is before you consider imaging software. (While there is a good chance that a person can retrieve a working mask or EPROM from an old system/cartridge, anything disk based will be much more sketchy. Not only do you need working drives to image the software, you need working media and the media cannot be copy protected.)
Then there’s PPSSPP, the PlayStation Portable emulator. The dev said they’ll try submitting a port to the App Store.