Apple has rejected UTM SE from the iOS and third party App Stores

&quot;and third party App Stores&quot;? How &quot;third party&quot; is that?<p>The &quot;it&#x27;s rejected, but it wasn&#x27;t good anyway&quot; paragraph at the bottom is perplexing.

I have a hunch about the real purpose of all of this. I wouldn&#x27;t be surprised if this has been discussed already, so please excuse if I am not up to date.<p>UTM SE is a virtual machine. Virtual machine allow running things under the user&#x27;s control. Apple being Corporate does not want that. They don&#x27;t want things they don&#x27;t control because that hurts their profit and public image. So it seems they just forbade JIT under some esoteric rationale. UTM SE called that bluff by submitting a virtual machine without JIT even this being a bad idea performance-wise.<p>Of course Apple has no qualms of running their own virtual machines themselves. Because, duh! They aren&#x27;t against virtual machines... They are against loss of control!

I&#x27;m a long time Apple fan and user but I very much dislike their App Store and its policies. In principle, a fair and open App Store (outside of things like porn and illegal activities) make sense. But it&#x27;s neither. It&#x27;s used as a crutch to beat developers with and actively harm users.<p>I&#x27;d much rather they fix their policies than be forced to by the government. But they don&#x27;t actual care about the users, and so I can&#x27;t wait until the US does what the EU did (even if its not the best solution).

The EU really needs to ensure Apple cannot interfere with apps intended for third party app stores.<p>Apple being able to do stuff like this is outright taking the piss.

One of the few apps that could single handedly make an iPad pro interesting. :(

I&#x27;m not sure why anyone would be surprised. Just from observing the platform rules and their review outcomes, this is what the expected result would be, regardless of what we want, wish or would find agreeable, even if Apple&#x27;s reasoning is flawed or incompetent.<p>I do wonder what the SE version would do without JIT for pure in-architecture virtualisation since there is arm64 software out there that would run just fine (with no JIT). Right now it seems it&#x27;s all pure QEMU and JIT and not much else. Or maybe I don&#x27;t understand the relationship between Apple&#x27;s HV, the HV options for UTM, QEMU and the requirement for JIT at all. There don&#x27;t seem to be any builds without JIT but with HV.

Now we know what is holding up iDOS 3. It does not use JIT but it falls under Apple&#x27;s ridiculous &quot;A PC is not a Console&quot; malicious compliance.