Apple never wanted emulators on the App Store. I imagine it felt strong-armed into allowing them, due to EU regulators getting antsy, or as a means to attempt to derail third-party app AltStore, which an awful lot of people primarily cared about due to Nintendo emulator Delta. Even with that, Apple first authorised a terrible rip-off over Delta, and everything since has been at best a crapshoot.

PPSSPP Gold is currently in kafkaesque hell, with absurdist responses from app review. Mini vMac was blocked from the App Store, because Apple took umbrage at the idea of an emulator that used its IP. But then Apple went a step further and wouldn’t notarise it for third-party stores, which is outrageous. 

These aren’t the only issues emulator authors have faced. Last I checked, MAME4iOS was in limbo. Several other emulator authors have given up. Meanwhile, Apple merrily approves emulators that barely work and are exploitative crap. A cynic might wonder whether this is intent, to showcase the worst of emulation and put people off. Although given app review’s history, it’s perhaps more realistic to instead go for the old saying that you should never put down to malice what could be explained by incompetence.

In 2013, I wrote a piece for The Guardian about iOS 7 causing motion sickness. This followed under-the-radar pieces about how animations could cause nausea and other symptoms in users. Fortunately, The Guardian piece got a lot of eyeballs on it, including – I was informed at the time – sufficiently senior people at Apple.

I remain deeply grateful to the iOS team in particular for subsequently taking vestibular accessibility seriously. The majority of issues I’ve flagged over the years have been acted upon. I vividly remember getting a wonderful surprise on the sole WWDC I was flown out to, on attending a developer session on accessibility and seeing someone on stage proudly noting that slide transitions in menus had been added to Reduce Motion. That was one of my last major issues on the platform, which I’d been bugging the iOS team about fixing. And, yes, reader, I may have welled up a bit.

But what I find disappointing is that, all these years after that Guardian piece broke, vestibular accessibility remains reactive rather than proactive. Nothing illustrates that better than Apple breaking Reduce Motion in Safari of all apps. When Reduce Motion is on, the zooms in the tab view should be replaced by crossfades. They were for a long time. But that went away in iOS 18. I dutifully mentioned this to Apple. It looks like this might be fixed in iOS 18.2. But the problem should never have come back in the first place – and it wouldn’t have if there was even the most rudimentary of testing by someone with Reduce Motion active.

Again, Apple’s iOS team has been the best of them, so I don’t want to slam its efforts. Other teams at Apple have been less responsive. And outside of Apple, my requests to help people with vestibular disorders have mostly been met with responses ranging from indifference to outright hostility. Fortunately, there are a few who do things right. I sent feedback to one major brand this year and received a call the very next day, asking how it could put things right. A month or so later, the app just worked. The animations had gone. But that’s rare. And it’s even rarer that this stuff is baked in from day one. It really shouldn’t be.

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.)

Australian Financial Review yesterday got the scoop that Canva had eaten Serif. Today, the news was confirmed. Wisely, Serif’s CEO then attempted to reassure the community that all was good, actually.

Although the press has in recent years often positioned Serif as a kind of scrappy underdog newcomer, the company has a long history. It was founded in 1987, which makes it only five years younger than Adobe. Most of its recent history has been tied up in becoming a direct competitor to Adobe – and also a direct competitor to Adobe’s business model. Through its Affinity suite, Serif offered an alternative: buy-once apps rather than subscriptions. And although I can’t imagine Serif makes anything other than a minority of its sales on iPad, the company’s superb Affinity apps for Apple’s tablet – compared to Adobe’s comparatively stumbling efforts – haven’t hurt the company’s reputation any.

Which brings us to today’s announcement. Canva now owns Serif. According to Serif’s CEO, not much will change. He claims Canva is a kindred spirit – that Canva and Serif have complementary products, hence the buyout making sense. He says the Affinity brand will continue, the apps will be developed by the same British team, and that no changes to the pricing model are planned “at this time”. But then he would say that, wouldn’t he?

I very much hope this British success story doesn’t get crushed under the weight of a comparative giant. Canva imposing its will on opinionated software with a business model that people love would be a big risk. While Affinity users might love the interface and feature set, a large number of them were drawn – and remain loyal – to the product primarily because of the business model. That’s where much of the goodwill lies. Any switch to a subscription could fatally damage the brand. I suspect Adobe would be quick to counter by unveiling a ‘designer’ Creative Cloud tier comprising Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign that just happened to be priced competitively, in an attempt to win people back.

Version 3 of the Affinity suite will probably be the moment we’ll know. You can already picture a press release stating that Canva has made the “difficult decision” to move Affinity apps to subscriptions, and a “hard choice” to move development from Nottingham to Canva HQ in Australia. I hope this won’t be the case, but we’ve seen this scenario play out so many times before. We’ll find out for sure one way or another within a year or two, and I do hope that in the same way Affinity bucked the trend with modern software, Serif bucks the trend when it comes to modern buyouts.