Licensed C64 Emulator Rejected From App Store 277
Miasik.Net writes "A fully licensed Commodore 64 iPhone emulator has been rejected from the App Store. The excuse Apple used is a clause in the SDK agreement which doesn't allow for applications that run executable code. It seems Sega is exempt from that clause, because some of its games on the iPhone are emulators running original ROM code."
Editorialise much ? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can argue that Sega ought to be treated the same way (and I'd agree with that), but to call it an "excuse" when the terms specifically and explicitly forbid it smacks of throwing one's toys out of the pram and screaming "waaaaaaaahhhh"! "I want, I want, I want!" is such an ugly character flaw when it's seen in "adults"...
Simon
I voted the story down.. (Score:5, Insightful)
...because I am tired of reports of apps not working on iPhone and other ways Apple limits it. If people care so much about freedom, why don't they stop using it?
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sick and tired of this meme. You confuse authority and defensibility. Yes, Apple has the authority to do this. No, it is NOT ethically right for Apple to do this.
It's not a new meme. In 1734, Alexander Pope published "An Essay on Man [theotherpages.org]":
The idea was corrosive back then, and it remains corrosive today. Knock it the fuck off.
Running specific or arbitrary code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Non entirely unreasonable ... (Score:3, Insightful)
From Apples perspective, I don't see this as entirely unreasonable.
They want to manage customer experience by controlling the environment. An app which can host arbitrary code could lead to exploits or other badness.
Code from the original ROMs is pretty well bounded and not going to do anything unexpected or malicious.
Now, that doesn't mean a bunch of people won't howl about this. But, for the average person buying a iPhone, I doubt they'll care.
Cheers
Clarification (Score:2, Insightful)
I think what Apple wants is to make sure you can't "add" more games without going to the appstore.
Individual games (eg the Sega ones referred to) are each a seperate app that you get from the App store. You arent getting a single "Sega" emulator which you can then get more roms (legit or otherwise) seperately from the app store.
Presumably the C64 emulator had no such limitation.
(I have an iPhone, its jailbroken and unlocked, and even though I can explain Apple's motivation for their restrictive policy, they can kiss my ass)
Oh, don't be an idiot. (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't Apple using their broad unspecified powers to reject an app arbitrarily or for a moronic reason. If it were, I'd agree with you.
This is an app that should never have even been started, because it very clearly violates the SDK agreement, and anyone with half a brain would have known that Apple would reject it.
As for the assertion that Sega's games are just emulators...
So get the hell off your high horse already and live in the real world.
Dan Aris
Typical Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The hell are they thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't want to lose the ability to approve all apps. If the emulator in its current form can load other ROMs or BASIC programs then you have a way of bypassing the App Store after the first purchase. I assume Sega made sure that their package could only run the one game it sold with and thus could not be used to bypass the app store.
Idiotic Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Sega is exempt; their programs are a single ROM, run via emulation. You don't buy a Sega hardware emulator and then download ROMs for it, so they can test it fully before allowing it to be released. An open emulator, able to run any ROM you give it, is essentially a way to run un-tested, 3rd party code on the platform. There's no way for Apple to be sure the programs stay within their virtual environment. In essence, it would be a way to circumvent the security and execution protection on the phone entirely; it's a jailbreaker.
I'm about as far from an Apple apologist as you can get, and can't wait for this app store bullshit to quiet down. But let's not start reviling them for merely following their stated policy. If these people want to release their emulator, they'll need to do what their competitors have: bundle it with specific games and sell THOSE instead.
Re:I voted the story down.. (Score:5, Insightful)
...because I am tired of reports of apps not working on iPhone and other ways Apple limits it. If people care so much about freedom, why don't they stop using it?
Hint: They don't [care so much], otherwise they would stop using it. The only ones who really do care are 0.00001% of iPhone users (who also happen to read slashdot, by the way).
Right idea, wrong reason (Score:3, Insightful)
The general pattern is:
1) App is arbitrarily rejected for some reason.
2) Angry story on Slashdot about rejection.
3) App is resubmitted and accepted with some minor change (or no change at all like in the case of the eBook reader).
The stories are lame because the review system is a little subject to the whims of any given reviewer now, after two submissions that fail then I'd start saying it might be worthy of a story.
That said, this rejection does not fall into this pattern. The development guidelines have been very clear about emulators, they are not allowed. This was widely reported. I personally think the person who submitted the app did do because they knew they would get rejected, knew they would then get publicity, and say "Hey, I'm releasing on the Cydia App Store".
So you are right to vote this down, but not for the reasons you think... this story is pure marketing.
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not trolling. Did you read the article?
Their emulator is capable of executing arbitrary BASIC code. That's like complaining that you spent a bunch of time writing a Java emulator for the iphone but then it was rejected. It's clearly disallowed, and that's not unreasonable--if they didn't disallow it, it would basically make the app store completely useless. People could write apps that were specifically intended to run on your execution platform, and completely bypass the app store. While you may not agree with this decision, it's reasonable as-is.
What I'm certain they'll be able to do is what Sega and others have done, and release a game pack that has a few games, but doesn't support downloadable content, or release one (or a few) game(s) at a time that uses their emulator backend for $0.99 each. I suspect as long as they don't expose their emulator directly, they'll be fine.
(And frankly, if you're going to argue that a programmable calculator or even a chip-8 emulator is in the same category as a BASIC interpreter, you're simply wrong).
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it suck? Yeah. Unethical? That's a stretch...
Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
High horse? At least I'm not stuck in the intellectual mud like you are. All of you people are ignoring the larger problem here, which is that Apple purports to control the applications a customer runs on a device he's purchased outright. It's ludicrous. Apple has no moral authority to set these rules at all.
The larger problem here is that Apple can reject applications at all. You people seem to have passively accepted it. It's as if you were in Salem arguing about whether a witch should have been burned or hanged while ignoring the larger question is whether you should execute the alleged "witch" at all!
Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my dim and distant youth, one large company (which shall remain nameless) strung us along for years before finally buying us. I'm well aware of the dangers of nods-and-winks, and I'm well aware that they're completely and utterly worthless. Get it in writing or you don't have anything.
What I don't have any sympathy for is agreeing to X then complaining it means you can't do Y, when the initial agreement specifically pointed out you can't do Y. It's not as though it's some unexpected corollary of a sub-clause hidden in the fine-print - it's right out there in the open. You cannot load executable code. End of story.
Simon.
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:3, Insightful)
> And I'm sick and tired of this entitlement meme.
It's not "entitlement" to desire control of one's own property.
Yes: an iPhone becomes my property when I buy it.
So does a copy of "The Martian Chronicles" (on book, ebook or DVD).
What is "executable code"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked, the iPhone could not run C64 programs natively. So, essentially, the games are interpreted by the emulator (as it is with pretty much all emulators).
According to that logic, you'd have to ban any application with built in scripting (like, say, any office application that I'm aware of), hell, a PDF reader would be banned as well because PDFs may include scripts. If you want to go bonkers, you could pretty much ban any application that takes any kind of not built-in data because technically, this is interpreted by the application as well.
Re:Read the article much ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Talking to someone from Apple marketing over the phone and getting a verbal "hey that sounds cool" is completely and utterly worthless. Getting written permission as above would give him a fully justifiable case (and probably a lawsuit). He's probably somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately unless you have the written permission, you have nothing.
Simon
Re:What is "executable code"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Now you've discovered that Apple's restrictions don't have anything to do with technical quality. Instead, they're just designed to provide Apple an excuse to ban any application that might threaten Apple's revenue stream.
That kind of behavior shouldn't be allowed on a mass-market platform like the iPhone. Nobody should have the authority to tell me what applications I can run on a device I own, just like a publisher can't tell me not to resell a book.
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Simon
Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (Score:4, Insightful)
While it is true that a person has the option to not buy a product. You fail to take into account that they also have the innate right of altering any product they own however they see fit. Anyone who disagrees with that is ignoring one of the fundamental driving forces of innovation for the last several millenia.
Re:App store process (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty obvious. The people looking at app store submissions likely have only a very basic understanding of the issues involved, and the SDK agreement isn't very precise as to what falls and doesn't fall under this rule. So the results basically depend on the guy's gut feeling when he checks out the app. For example, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them would consider a SID player a simple music player, even though it actually runs C64 machine code, just as they would probably accept a game with downloadable levels which include some form of built-in scripting as OK, as long as that part isn't explicitly pointed out somewhere.
No part of this is surprising. It's a crappy technical rule, and crappy technical rules don't work well when more than one person is supposed to enforce them.
Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's my right because I OWN the device.
As a former owner, Microsoft has no control over what I do with the device. If I sell a house, I have no say over whether the new owner paints all the rooms lime green and puts in red shag carpeting. It's not my house anymore. Likewise, when I buy a 360, it's not Microsoft's 360 anymore.
It's called "private property", and it's been part of Western culture for at least 6,000 years. The burden of proof is on you to show why I shouldn't be allowed to do what I want with my own property.
This article is extremely misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
This article is extremely misleading, resulting in tons of off-target flaming.
Apple doesn't prohibit apps using emulation, they prohibit apps that download and run arbitrary code, bypassing the Apple Store. The mistakes that the developers made were (1) putting a C64 Store into the app, and (2) putting a BASIC interpreter in the emulator. If it's tweaked slightly so that the games are downloaded through the Apple Store 3, and the BASIC interpreter is removed (it's useless anyway), I'm sure that it would be approved.
The developers probably decided to push the boundaries a bit in order to generate some news/press coverage. Pretty clever, actually - now Slashdot and other geek news sites is promoting them, and their app will still get approved in a week or two.
Rights vs Support (Score:4, Insightful)
It's my right because I OWN the device.
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean the manufacturer has to support it.
You are perfectly free to jailbreak your iPhone and install all sorts of unapproved software on it. So far as I know, there's nothing illegal about it, and the jailbreak community is pretty good at keeping on top of updates that fix previous methods of jailbreaking. Personally, I'm pretty happy with the selection of apps available through the App Store, and don't consider the hassle of jailbreaking worth the extra functionality I would be able to get. For others, the calculation is different.
"Moral authority" doesn't enter into it, mate.
Dan Aris
Re:I voted the story down.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Whats really going on is sega wants to sell games but not give a dime to apple. Having an emulator get accepted only costs sega the % fee of one app. Being able to download new apps not from the app store directly into the emulator = 100% profit for sega, not 100%-x to apple.
Re:Apple rejecting apps? Say it ain't so! (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that Apple wants a cut of every app sold for this platform and absolute control over everything that runs on it. Allowing anything not filtered through their review and sales process to execute on the phone, even in a sandboxed, virtualized environment, screws up their business model. And you know how companies get when you present a threat to their business model.
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you Space cowboy. When the SDK agreement came out I was talking to someone who was working on a C64 emulator for the iPhone (not the emulator in this story incidentally) and I said "But the agreement expressly forbids emulators."
Yes, I agree it's wrong that Sega can do this (assuming they actually are and there isn't some change with how they're doing stuff under the hood), but the fact is me, a non-coder, has known that emulators wouldn't be allowed under the agreement.
I guess the best outcome would be that with this gaining attention and the Sega thing that the rules change. That would be great, but even if he was told it's okay, I would expect he didn't check multiple times. One thing I've learned over the years with red tape is if you speak to three different people, you'll invariably get 3 different answers. Getting one response is not very helpful.
If the author really DID have a leg to stand to on, he'd have evidence to prove to Apple he was told it would be okay.
Instead it's yet another case of an app being turned down and the Slashdot community crying "fuck Apple" and the usual tired cliches.
Re:Non entirely unreasonable ... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also reasonable not to let any random app execute arbitrary downloaded code on a mobile phone. I'd be rather cranky if one of the downloadable C64 games used the opportunity to send a few GB worth of spam while I was playing it.
Re:Obligatory Edsger Dijkstra (Score:5, Insightful)
as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
What a stinky, steaming pile of horse crap!!! (Even if Holy Saint Dijkstra said it.)
Hundreds of thousands of programmers got their start writing C-64, TRS-80, Apple & Sinclair BASIC on their home computers before graduating to structured languages, and 10s of thousands of them turned out to e good or great programmers.
In fact, I know that it's perfectly possible to write good structured code in COBOL-74. You "just" need a good knowledge of the features of the language (in addition to the standard prerequisites required by all good programmers).
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that something is sold to you as a LOSS LEADER does not alter the fact that it was sold to you.
The fact that something is sold to you for below cost or even just given to you does not alter the transfer of ownership.
The contortions that individuals go through in order to help expand the powers of corporations is just mind boggling. ...kinda puts the Iranian elections into perspective.
Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (Score:4, Insightful)
>Apple has no moral authority to set these rules at all.
Let me put this in simple terms for you.
It's their ball. They get to choose the rules.
They do not have the monopoly on phone handsets. Buy another and get over it.
I can't be the only person who loved the iPhone but thought "I'll wait till a handset that I can put my own apps on comes along".
The openmoko project is an attempt at this, and one day it will happen, but until then I'll keep my cash in my wallet.
Re:Rights vs Support (Score:2, Insightful)
>However, I also argue that Apple be forced to open up the iPhone,
Oh for the love of Christ, when is this shit going to end. Apple don;t have a monopoly on mobile phones; buy another if you don't like how they play.
It's their ball, they get to set the rules. Are you some kind of communist or something?
Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear hear. If you want to write an AIM client that runs in the background you can do so. If you want to buy an iPhone, take it apart, and put it back together in a Kindle, that's fine. No problem. Do whatever you want to do. Apple isn't stopping you from doing whatever you want to do with your iPhone.
Just don't expect Apple to distribute it for you. Just don't expect Apple to make it convenient for you to distribute it. Just don't expect any support from Apple after you've done these things.
Basically, if you do these things, you're on your own. That doesn't preclude you from doing it. It just means nobody is going to help you out if you turn your iPhone into a very expensive brick. It means that if your battery won't hold a charge because you wrote an app that drained the battery in 20 minutes and you now have to send your phone in for battery replacement 4 years earlier than expected, don't blame Apple.
Re:Read the article much ? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. But about the only one person who speaks for Apple is Steve Jobs. Other than that, everyone else has their own opinions on what's cool and what isn't.
Last week at WWDC, I spoke to someone at Apple who was interested in an App I'm working on. The problem is, parts of it need to run in the background for the best user experience. He agreed with me. That does not mean if I submit said app, it would be approved. What that means is that one person agrees with me--that my App would be better if it could run in the background.
Where would I go from here? Well, I need to find out from that one person who I would talk to about getting my app approved--the person I talked to wasn't the one person who gets to decide these things. I would need to talk to that person and see if there was a way for my app to be approved. Perhaps fly to Cupertino, CA, and demonstrate the usefulness of my app and the benefits of it being able to run in the background. Discuss the deficits of my App running in the background in regards to reduced battery life and general slowness and how I can ameliorate these issues.
In other words, I need to work my ass off playing politics with Apple.
Now, let's say Apple "seemed really excited." Apple may have seen this as a development tool. Let's say I wrote a C64 game. I could conceivably buy this guy's software, package it up with my game, and sell it in the iTunes Store. That may be why Apple "seemed really excited" about this--not as an App but as a tool for BASIC programmers to develop iPhone apps.
Re:Obligatory Edsger Dijkstra (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it is the reverse, in my experience. Most programmers I know started their craft with a Commodore 64, Apple II, or Atari computers; programming in BASIC. Only after realizing how limited and slow the language was were they even exposed to Assembly or Machine Language.
In my experience, then, programming in BASIC gave them the inspiration, the interest, and the impetus to learn the lower level languages, precisely because a good high-level language was not available. The fact that they knew BASIC, and could even exploit its intricacies, did not hinder their appreciation for other languages, nor their ability to learn or apply them.
-dZ.