Apple’s New Emulator Policy Is, For Some Reason, Only For Consoles And Not Retro PC Games

When it comes to policy decisions generally, and with technology platforms specifically, all we can really ask is that a policy be coherently stated and implemented in a uniform fashion. You may dislike said policy, but at a minimum it should be legible and enforced sensibly. Take, for instance, Apple’s updated policy on allowing emulation apps on its iOS platforms. While Apple traditionally disallowed such apps in its App Store, the recent change has finally allowed for the legal use of emulator apps designed to let people play “retro” or homebrew games via emulators. As a reminder, here is the actual policy language in question:

4.7 Mini apps, mini games, streaming games, chatbots, plug-ins, and game emulators

Apps may offer certain software that is not embedded in the binary, specifically HTML5 mini apps and mini games, streaming games, chatbots, and plug-ins. Additionally, retro game console emulator apps can offer to download games. You are responsible for all such software offered in your app, including ensuring that such software complies with these Guidelines and all applicable laws. Software that does not comply with one or more guidelines will lead to the rejection of your app. You must also ensure that the software adheres to the additional rules that follow in 4.7.1 and 4.7.5. These additional rules are important to preserve the experience that App Store customers expect, and to help ensure user safety.

Well, apparently one very specific word in that policy is something that Apple considers or paramount importance: “console.” We learn this via Chaoji Li, the developer of a DOSBox style emulator designed to allow iOS users to play retro PC games on their devices. With the updated Apple policy, Li submitted his app for consideration in the App Store, only to have it rejected by Apple as being against the policy. And, because this is Apple we’re talking about, the company rejected it in the most annoying way possible.

They have decided that iDOS is not a retro game console, so the new rule is not applicable. They suggested I make changes and resubmit for review, but when I asked what changes I should make to be compliant, they had no idea, nor when I asked what a retro game console is. It’s still the same old unreasonable answer along the line of “we know it when we see it.”

Now, Apple continues to point that the policy change refers to retro game “consoles”, not PC emulation applications. And, hey, that’s true! Also, from a practical application standpoint, what the actual hell is the difference? The spirit of the change in policy was to allow users to emulate games they presumably already own, only on their iOS devices rather than on their original platform. From that standpoint, what is the difference between a NES emulator and DOSBox?

Why does Apple treat the idea of a DOSBox-style emulator running an ancient copy of Microsoft Excel differently than the idea of Delta running a copy of NES Tetris on the same device? Is loading the Windows 95 Version of KidPix Studio Deluxe on your iPhone really all that different from playing an emulated copy of Mario Paint on that same iPhone?

A virtual machine or emulator running a modern PC operating system under iOS could theoretically offer some generalized competition for the apps Apple offers in its official App Store. But surely there’s a limit to how much that applies when we’re talking about emulating older computing environments and defunct operating systems. Just as Apple’s iOS game emulation rules only apply to “retro” game consoles, a rule for PC emulation could easily be limited to “retro” operating systems (say, those that are no longer officially supported by their original developers, as a rule of thumb).

It seems that either Apple’s App Store gatekeepers don’t understand the policy, or they do understand and are faithfully implementing it while being unable to actually articulate why this specific distinction is made.

Either way, it seems that retro PC game fans are being left off the party invite list for reasons nobody has thus far been able to articulate.