Veteran Apple expert and commentator Jason Snell asked of me the question that’s the title of this post. This was after I (playfully) responded to his thoughts about Apple working on a “new, consistent design” with an XKCD klaxon jibe.

The actual answer to the question, in true Betteridge’s Law fashion, is no. But really: it’s complicated. 

In the full Mastodon thread, Snell suggested we should praise optimism over negativity, and called the latter “no way to live”. Similar sentiments about Apple have recently been expressed by Federico Viticci and David Smith. And, despite my often cynical and curmudgeonly demeanour, I think there’s value in that way of thinking. Being relentlessly negative is no fun.

But.

I’m not keen on recent trends that suggest where Apple might head, hiding or removing yet more UI, including iPhone app tabs and iPad app sidebars. More importantly, every single major Apple redesign – even more so than ‘standard’ annual OS updates – results in a slew of vestibular accessibility issues that slip through the net.

I’m not sure why this is the case. And, to be fair, Apple’s iOS team has been very responsive ever since the iOS 7 days. Multiple requests that I’ve made have been rolled into iOS, which remains far ahead of Apple’s other operating systems in terms of usability for people who have vestibular conditions. (Stern glare @ tvOS team…)

Even so, more proactive support would be welcome. And so, returning to the question posed at the start, I’m not afraid of a major iOS redesign per se, but I am concerned that it will render my devices unusable for weeks or even months until fixes are made. If that’s primarily for a coat of fresh paint, that will be particularly dispiriting.

Writer Matt Gemmell decided eight years ago to go all-in on iPad. Now, he’s switched back to the Mac. This should set alarm bells ringing on Apple’s iPad team, but I imagine Apple as a whole won’t really be fussed. After all, Matt simply swapped one Apple product for another. And he’s keeping the iPad. If anything, this is a victory for Apple and precisely what it wants people to do.

In his post, Matt notes part of the problem with the iPad is that it’s never been strongly defined. When Steve Jobs introduced the iPad, it was positioned somewhere between a phone and a laptop. Since then, users have argued for it to take over the capabilities of both devices – but especially the latter. However, while the iPad has the power of Apple’s ‘proper’ computers, it lacks the flexibility and, in some cases, utility. All of which is by design.

What some people tend to forget is that Apple is very opinionated on wanting people to buy (at least one) Mac alongside any Apple mobile devices. It’s my ongoing belief that arbitrary barriers have therefore been – at best – left in place for that purpose. Friction exists in part not because Apple cannot find a solution that works on a tablet, but because Apple wants more of your money, and it gets that through hardware sales.

Right now, any current-gen iPhone is more than powerful enough to run the vast majority of software the average person would want to use. And more. Mine happily runs Korg Gadget projects with an absurd number of tracks. But Apple absolutely does not want your iPhone to become the one device to rule them all. It hates the idea of you getting home and plugging your iPhone into a dock, and using it with a keyboard, display and pointing device. Because then you’d only buy one thousand-buck device, rather than two – or several. The iPad isn’t quite in the same space. After all, Apple is quite happy about selling iPad keyboards that cost as much as entry-level iPads. But it would still prefer for you to own an iPad and a Mac. And an iPhone. And maybe a second Mac. And so on.

I’ve struggled with the same issues as Matt. I for a time really wanted an iPad to become more. I love using the device. But I stuck with an iMac for the day job, primarily due to iPad frictions relating to external display support. Even when Stage Manager arrived, it was far, far too slow and clunky to replace my Mac set-up. My iPad subsequently largely turned into a combination of comics reader and sofa-based music-creation sketchpad, with the odd smattering of video and games. One holiday, I took only the iPad and found myself frustrated by how much longer key tasks took when I was trying to work at speed, in order to enjoy more of my spare time.

From a personal standpoint, things have changed a little since last September, in terms of my iPad usage. Although that’s not really been down to the iPad itself. There’s something very off for me about the iPhone 16 Pro. I’m reasonably certain I cannot use it for any extended length of time without getting dizzy. Despite my issues with vestibular triggers, I’ve never had this with any other Apple display when a device has Reduce Motion active. Perhaps something has changed with the display and PWM. I don’t know. But this does mean my iPad is now doing more work again, in being the device I read on at breakfast or noodle around on of an evening. Notably, though, the iPad is still not being used more for work. And I’m not sure that will ever change.

I recently wrote about iDOS for iPhone. In June, iDOS was rejected for not emulating a “retro game console”. This despite multiple emulators being approved for the App Store that don’t emulate retro game consoles. However, having initially rejected it, Apple subsequently approved UTM SE, essentially a PC emulator. Logically, then, you’d think Apple would change its mind regarding iDOS. Well, no. On 16 July, the app’s creator said his appeal had been rejected.

It’s surely now clear Apple isn’t serious about allowing emulators on the App Store. But worse: it’s not serious about level playing fields for apps either. Instead, it’s inviting emulator developers to coin-flip approvals, and perhaps (on the basis of the course of events we’ve so far witnessed) changing its mind when not doing so could cause regulatory problems, or when an app could threaten the App Store in some way by causing more people to look elsewhere. UTM, notably, was first rejected for an external app store, Apple sticking up a middle digit to EU regulation. And then when someone at Apple realised that was a very bad idea and UTM was finally approved, it was approved for the App Store as well, which dents any advantage the third-party store has.

However, that UTM is now allowed but iDOS is not is indefensible. They’re both PC emulators. Apple has been inconsistent in the past with App Store rules and approvals, but this pairing is especially stark and egregious. At this point, I wouldn’t spend a single second developing an emulator for iOS. Which is probably how Apple wants it anyway. If I were the iDOS developer, I’d lob the app at AltStore and see what happens. Or, you know, just give up, like so many other ex-iOS devs I hear from these days have already done.

What gets me is this is all so stupid and unnecessary. There’s clearly reluctance from somewhere senior in Apple about emulators. But then the company sort of changed its mind, yet provided no rules. It instead went for the developer-hostile “we’ll know it when we see it”. Only ‘it’ doesn’t mean anything specific. If it did, we wouldn’t currently have ZX81, C64 and MSX emulators on the App Store, given that they emulate hardware platforms that are not retro gaming consoles.

Another thing that’s also come under harsh criticism (and affects UTM’s performance) is Apple blocking support for JIT. This is essential for strong performance when emulating more modern systems and further hamstrings iPhone and iPad in this space. For once, I’m actually OK with this decision. And that’s because Apple has with this decision by accident ended up in a reasonably moral space regarding emulation, making it impossible to emulate modern systems that remain commercially viable. I’m very aware emulation as a whole is a grey area, but there’s a world of difference between firing up Drelbs on my iPhone and loading up a phone with Nintendo Switch titles.

So, frustrating as it might be to some people, that outcome (if not, perhaps, the mechanism) is defensible. But so much else surrounding Apple’s current approach to emulators is, at best, deeply cynical or horribly incompetent. Neither of those things is a great look.

As a fan of emulation and safeguarding gaming’s history, I find myself increasingly frustrated with Apple in this space. It has – either by intent or incompetence – created the circumstances in which iOS has a confused, messy, inconsistent emulator ecosystem.

There are some stars, such as Delta and PPSSPP. We have a cut-down RetroArch, because the creator is walking on eggshells. There’s the odd really interesting curio, like ZX81, but an awful lot of churn junk, such as terrible NES and C64 emulators.

The last of those things is in part down to Apple not providing clear direction and constantly changing the rules. It would be simple to clarify what’s allowed, but Apple never wanted emulators on the store in the first place, and only appeared to approve any to blunt AltStore’s chances and perhaps to avoid getting walloped by the EU.

App Store review is inconsistent at the best of times, but the situation with emulation is now beyond absurd. The MAME4iOS dev says their app has been rejected multiple times for ‘spam’. Apple might point to the iDOS rejection (‘iDOS is not a retro game console’) and argue MAME does not make the cut for the same reason. Yet there is a (fairly awful) Final Burn Neo arcade emulator available to download. Another error? Who knows? Either way, this doesn’t say good things about app review.

As for iDOS, that situation is now… fluid, given that Apple has approved PC emulator UTM SE. But who’s to say Apple won’t change its mind next week, depending on what it thinks it can get away with? And I do wonder what will happen if someone dares to submit an Apple II or Mac emulator for review. Perhaps they should submit it to AltStore first – that at least appears to make Apple rethink.

So three months in and, as predicted by me and others, emulation on iOS is an incoherent mess. Which probably suits Apple but further dents the platform’s credibility with a noisy contingent of gamers and makes it look inferior to Android. And Apple’s ridiculous review stance means great devs won’t bother making emulators for iPhone and iPad. Why would they? Why spend months polishing an emulator only for Apple to arbitrarily decide to reject it? (And, yes, this is the wider App Store in microcosm. Creators of other apps and games increasingly feel the same way.)

Apple’s being walloped by regulators, and it’s increasingly clear most of the tech press doesn’t understand antitrust. Fortunately, Ian Betteridge does, so go and read his blog.

My take, honestly, is all this just makes me feel a bit sad. I like a lot of what Apple does. Even if I didn’t write about Apple, I’d have an iMac, an Apple TV or two, an iPhone, and an iPad. But Apple as it grows (and is expected by the markets to continue doing so) has overreached in some cases, and enacted dark patterns elsewhere.

I imagine a lot of people are rushing to defend Apple by default because, in part, they remember when the company nearly winked out of existence. Others, perhaps, because the company does objectively do an awful lot of things really well, and seems to care more than most rivals about what matters. But that doesn’t excuse the bad stuff, nor that in some cases Apple has decided it’s OK to just be ‘least bad’. That isn’t good enough.

I don’t want an MLS nav item forced on me in Apple TV. I want to install Retroarch on my iPhone. I don’t want ads in the App Store trying to trick me into installing something other than what I searched for. And I don’t want devs of apps I love to partake in a lottery with every single update they file. Small things, of course, but all of these little pieces – from millions and millions of users, businesses and creators – add up.

If nothing else, what happens next will be interesting. But mostly, I hope it will be beneficial, leading to a better future for consumers and Apple alike, even if the Apple that emerges is in key ways different from the one we have today.