Apple Archive

Of course you can run Doom on a $10,000+ Apple server running IBM AIX. Of course you can. Well, you can now. Now, let’s go ahead and get the grumbling out of the way. No, the ANS is not running Linux or NetBSD. No, this is not a backport of NCommander’s AIX Doom, because that runs on AIX 4.3. The Apple Network Server could run no version of AIX later than 4.1.5 and there are substantial technical differences. (As it happens, the very fact it won’t run on an ANS was what prompted me to embark on this port in the first place.) And no, this is not merely an exercise in flogging a geriatric compiler into building Doom Generic, though we’ll necessarily do that as part of the conversion. There’s no AIX sound driver for ANS audio, so this port is mute, but at the end we’ll have a Doom executable that runs well on the ANS console under CDE and has no other system prerequisites. We’ll even test it on one of IBM’s PowerPC AIX laptops as well. Because we should. ↫ Cameron Kaiser Excellent reading, as always, from Cameron Kaiser.

A few months ago I shared my Swift SDK for Darwin, which allows you to build iOS Swift Packages on Linux, amongst other things. I mentioned that a lot of work still needed to be done, such as handling codesigning, packaging, and bundling. I’m super excited to share that we’ve finally reached the point where all of these things are now possible with cross-platform, open source software. Enter, xtool! This means it’s finally possible to build and deploy iOS apps from Linux and Windows (WSL). At the same time, xtool is SwiftPM-based and fully declarative, which means you can also use it to replace Xcode on macOS for building iOS software! ↫ kabiroberai While this is obviously an impressive piece of engineering that’s taken countless years to fully put together, the issue this doesn’t address are Apple’s licensing terms when it comes to Xcode and development for Apple’s platforms. The Apple Developer Program License Agreement clearly forbids installing Xcode and the Apple SDK on non-Apple branded devices, and as this new xtool requires you download Xcode.xip and use it, it seems it violates these terms. Now, as far as I’m concerned, these terms are idiotic and should be 100% illegal, but if you’re an Apple developer who relies on your Apple developer account to make money, using a tool like this definitely has the potential to put your developer account at risk. For experimentation, sure, this is great, but for any official work I would be quite weary until Apple makes some sort of statement about the matter, which is highly unlikely to happen. Perhaps the courts can, at some point, have a say here – especially in the EU – but even then, Apple can always find or manufacture some reason to terminate your account if they really want to. If you want to develop on your own terms, perhaps developing for Apple platforms is not what you should be doing.

Way back in 2021, in the Epic v. Apple court case, judge US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to allow third-party developers to tell users how to make payments inside iOS applications without going through Apple’s App Store. As we have come to expect from Apple, the company maliciously complied, lowering the commission on purchases outside of its ecosystem from 30% to 27%, while also adding a whole bunch of hoops and hurdles, like scare screens with doom-and-gloom language to, well, scare consumers into staying within Apple’s ecosystem for in-app payments. Well, it turns out Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is furious, giving Apple, Tim Cook, and its other executives what can only be described as a beatdown – even highlighting how one of Apple’s executives, under orders from Tim Cook, lied under oath several times. Gonzalez is referring this to the District Attorney for Northern California “to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate.” In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein, more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. The Court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate. ↫ US District Judge Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Gonzalez’ entire ruling is scathing, seething with rage, and will probably do more reputational damage to Apple, Tim Cook, and his executive team than any bendgate or antennagate could ever do. Judge Gonzalez: This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avoid compliance with the Injunction. Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases. Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple. ↫ US District Judge Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Gonzalez effectively destroyed any ability for Apple to charge commissions on purchases made inside iOS applications but outside Apple’s App Store, and this order will definitely find its way to the European Union as well, where it will serve as further evidence of Tim Cook’s and Apple’s continuous, never-ending contempt for the law and courts that uphold it. For its part, Apple has stated they’re going to appeal. Good luck with that.

I’ve saved the worst for last. For some reason, Xcode phones home to appstoreconnect.apple.com every time I open an Xcode project. This also appears to be unnecessary, and I experience no problems after denying the connections in Little Snitch, so I do! I assume that the connections send identifying information about the Xcode project to Apple, otherwise why even make the connections when opening a project? And all of these connections from Xcode, to every domain, require login to your Apple Developer account, so Apple is definitely receiving identifying information about you in any case. In effect, Xcode is a developer analytics collection mechanism, whether you like it or not, which I don’t. ↫ Jeff Johnson If, at this point in time, you’re still surprised Apple doesn’t practice what it preaches, the fault lies pretty much entirely with you. Anyway, it seems Xcode phones home to Apple quite a bit, which I doubt is all that unique in the world of commercial development environments. I honestly don’t think Apple itself doing anything particularly nefarious with this data, but the fact it’s collecting it in the first place should still make you think twice about using Xcode, especially if you’re developing anything even remotely sensitive. What should really worry you is the fact Tim Cook and Apple are close allies of Trump and his regime. Xcode is required for iOS/iPadOS/etc. development, because the App Store requires applications be built and submitted with it. As such, every iOS developer is sending substantial amounts of data to Apple during development, which should be especially concerning for people outside of the US and people who aren’t straight white males; using Xcode requires an Apple Account, so Apple knows quite a bit about who is using it. With the breakdown of the rule of law in the US, all of this data is basically freely accessible to US authorities, and we’ve seen by now that people like self-styled genius Elon Musk don’t worry too much about pesky things like the rule of law. If Musk wants this data, Apple will hand it over. If you’re an Apple developer, you should stop and think every time you open Xcode. You’re sending your data straight to a hostile entity. If you’re claiming to use Apple products because of Apple’s privacy “promises”, Xcode’s data collection should be a huge worry for you.

What’s the European Commission to do when one of the largest corporations in the world has not only been breaking its laws continually, but also absolutely refuses to comply, uses poison pills in its malicious compliance, badmouths you in the press through both official – and unofficial – employees? Well, you start telling that corporation exactly what it needs to do to comply, down to the most minute implementation details, and in the process take away any form of wiggle room. Steven Troughton-Smith, an absolute wizard when it comes to the inner workings of Apple’s various platforms and allround awesome person, dove into the European Commission’s proposed next steps when it comes to dealing with Apple’s refusal to comply with EU law – the Digital Markets Act, in particular – and it’s crystal-clear that the EC is taking absolutely no prisoners. They’re not only telling Apple exactly what kind of interoperability measures it must take, down to the API level, but they’re also explicitly prohibiting Apple from playing games through complex contracts and nebulous terms to try and make interoperability a massive burden. As an example of just how detailed the EC is getting with Apple, here’s what the company needs to do to make AirDrop interoperable: Apple shall provide a protocol specification that gives third parties all information required to integrate, access, and control the AirDrop protocol within an application or service (including as part of the operating system) running on a third-party connected physical device in order to allow these applications and services to send files to, and receive files from, an iOS device. ↫ European Commission In addition, Apple must make any new features or changes to AirDrop available to third parties at the same time as it releases them: For future functionalities of or updates to the AirDrop feature, Apple shall make them available to third parties no later than at the time they are made available to any Apple connected physical device. ↫ European Commission These specific quotes only cover AirDrop, but similar demands are made about things like AirPlay, the easy pairing process currently reserved for Apple’s own accessories, and so on. I highly suggest reading the source document, or at the very least the excellent summary thread by Steven, to get an even better idea of what the EC is demanding here. The changes must be made in the next major version of iOS, or at the very latest before the end of 2025. The EC really goes into excruciating detail about how Apple is supposed to implement these interoperability features, and leaves very little to no wiggle room for Apple shenanigans. The EC is also clearly fed up with Apple’s malicious compliance and other tactics to violate the spirit of the DMA: Apple shall not impose any restrictions on the type or use case of the software application and connected physical device that can access or makeuse of the features listed in this Document. Apple shall not undermine effective interoperability with the 11 features set out in this Document by behaviour of a technical nature. In particular, Apple shall actively take all the necessary actions to allow effective interoperability with these features. Apple shall not impose any contractual or commercial restrictions that would be opaque, unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory towards third parties or otherwise defeat the purpose of enabling effective interoperability. In particular, Apple shall not restrict business users, directly or indirectly, to make use of any interoperability solution in their existing apps via an automatic update. ↫ European Commission What I find most interesting about all of this is that it could have been so easily avoided by Apple. Had Apple approached the EU and the DMA with the same kind of respect, grace, and love Apple and Tim Cook clearly reserve for totalitarian dictatorships like China, Apple could’ve enabled interoperability in such a way that it would still align with most of Apple’s interests. They would’ve avoided the endless stream of negative press this fruitless “fight” with the EU is generating, and it would’ve barely impacted Apple’s bottom line. Put it on one of those Apple microsites that capture your scrolling, boast about how amazing Apple is and how much they love interoperability, and it most likely would’ve been a massive PR win. Instead, under the mistaken impression that this is a business negotiation, Apple tried to cry, whine, throw tamper tantrums, and just generally act like horrible spoiled brats just because someone far, far more powerful than they are told them “no” for once. Now they’ve effectively been placed under guardianship, and have to do exactly as the European Commission tells them to, down to the API level, without any freedom to make their own choices. The good thing is that the EC’s journey to make iOS a better and more capable operating system continues. We all benefit. Well, us EU citizens, anyway.

In recent weeks, law enforcement in the United States discovered, to their dismay, that iPhones were automatically rebooting themselves after a few days of inactivity, thereby denying them access to the contents of these phones. After a lot of speculation online, Jiska Classen dove into this story to find out what was going on, and through reverse-engineering they discovered that this was a new security feature built by Apple as part of iOS 18.1, to further make stolen iPhones useless for both thieves as well as law enforcement officers. It’s a rather clever feature. The Secure Enclave Processor inside the iPhone keeps track of when the phone was last unlocked, and if that period exceeds 72 hours, the SEP will inform a kernel module. This kernel module will then, in turn, tell the phone to gracefully reboot, meaning no data is lost in this process. If the phone for whatever reason does not reboot and remains powered on, the module will assume the phone’s been tampered with somehow and kernel-panic. Interestingly, if the reboot takes place properly, an analytics report stating how long the phone was not unlocked will be sent to Apple. The reason this is such a powerful feature is that a locked iPhone is entirely useless to anyone who doesn’t have the right code or biometrics to unlock it. Everything on the device is encrypted, and only properly unlocking it will decrypt the phone’s contents; in fact, a locked phone can’t even join a Wi-Fi network, because the stored passwords are encrypted (and I’m assuming that a locked phone does not provide access to any methods of joining an open network either). When you have a SIM card without any pincode, the iPhone will connect to the cellular network, but any notifications or calls coming in will effectively be empty, since incoming phone numbers can’t be linked to any of the still-encrypted contacts, and while the phone can tell it’s received notifications, it can’t show you any of their contents. A thief who’s now holding this phone can’t do much with it if it locks itself like this after a few days, and law enforcement won’t be able to access the phone either. This is a big deal in places where arrests based purely on skin colour or ethnicity or whatever are common, like in the United States (and in Europe too, just to a far lesser degree), or in places where people have to fear the authorities for other reasons, like in totalitarian dictatorships like Russia, China or Iran, where any hint of dissent can end you in harsh prisons. Apple is always at the forefront with features such as these, with Google and Android drunkenly stumbling into the open door a year later with copies that take ages to propagate through the Android user base. I’m legitimately thankful for Apple raising awareness of the need of features such as these – even if they’re too cowardly to enable them in places like China – as it’s quite clear a lot more people need to start caring about these things, with recent developments and all.