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."
The hell are they thinking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:2, Interesting)
If indeed he really contacted Apple, he ought to have something in writing. If he has something in writing, he has a case. I see nothing in writing or any claim of such. Basically I think he's lying.
Which brings us back to the original statement. He did something specifically against the terms of an agreement he made, and then complained when that agreement was enforced. Tough.
Simon.
Re:Read the article much ? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you RTFA, you will find that Manomio contacted Apple Europe before developing the app and they "seemed really excited".
Which could mean anything down to "I went to an Apple reseller and blathered about my idea to a salesdroid, and he seemed to like the idea."
What would they do with an Apple ][ emulator? (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, this is Apple we're talking about. They get nothing from a C-64 emulation, fully licensed or otherwise.
But Apple ][ on the other hand ...
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:3, Interesting)
What about arbitrary javascript on web pages? By your logic, a Flash player would be out of the question.
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, no, I wasn't comparing slavery and application installation.
If you'd read my post, you'd have realized that I was arguing that something a company has the ability and current legal authority to do isn't necessarily the best for society.
My position is that closed mass-market platforms like the iPhone should be opened by regulation. Companies shouldn't have the authority to decide what I can run on my own device.
You can agree or disagree with me, but I'm certainly not "nuts".
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, a browser would be out of the question (for the same reasons...)
Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (Score:3, Interesting)
That device didn't pretend to allow for complete customizability. It was sold as a device that could and couldn't do certain things.
And the annoyance is that those limitations are entirely imposed by Apple's business and marketing sides. Before the app store, Apple and its fanboys were firmly declaring that there shouldn't be third party apps for the iPhone because it didn't have enough power to run them, and it would lead to widespread viruses and disruption of the phone network, and web apps were just as good anyway. The jailbreakers and unauthorized app developers demonstrated all of those reasons to be utterly bogus. Now we're hearing the same sort of story about how mass chaos will ensue if Apple doesn't have doesn't have unlimited veto power over what apps you can run. I'm not inclined to believe that.
The iPhone is a brilliant piece of engineering, made substantially less useful by Apple's marketing games. Apple may have the right to do that, but let's not pretend it's good for anyone except possibly them.
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe that's how it used to be, back in the good old days (of "help I'm dying of polio!").
These days, there is no competition in SMS pricing; it's 25c no matter what carrier you go with. If that's not collusion, I don't know what is. SMS is something rather useful for a significant portion of the cell-phone-purchasing population, so it would make sense for carriers to compete on price in order to garner the most market share. But they don't; each SMS is 25c, no matter what.
Seems like something our legislative overlords should have more than a passing interest in...
Re:Rights vs Support (Score:3, Interesting)
My arguments has two parts. First, I was replying to a poster asking why he should be able to modify his 360. It's private property, and that's why anyone should be able to modify his own iPhone or 360.
However, I also argue that Apple be forced to open up the iPhone, i.e. make it easy to modify at least in a limited way. This position doesn't rely on the private property argument, but instead on the idea that closed platforms are anticompetitive, and that we have a collective interest in opening them up.
In other words, you should be able to use any tool you can imagine to open up a closed device that you own, but additionally, companies shouldn't be allowed to sell closed devices in the first place.
Not really, no. You can make the argument on purely economic grounds. But on the other hand, closed platforms really do feel wrong, and that feeling resonates with a lot of people.
Re:Editorialise much ? (Score:4, Interesting)
And what exactly is so important about the app store that it cannot be bypassed?
Re:SIDs contain code. (Score:1, Interesting)
Also, it seems that Apple should be able to validate that a 'SID player' doesn't do anything harmful; and, if the emulator itself isn't harmful then the input to it cannot possibly be (isn't this essentially the notion behind the sandbox-'security' of JVM).
Re:I voted the story down.. (Score:2, Interesting)
If people care so much about freedom, why don't they stop using it?
By keeping Apple's shitty attitude toward developers constantly on display, at least /. might save a few people from accidentally buying an iPhone in the first place.
Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that's exactly what it is. Apple uses DRM to ensure the app store is the only legitimate way to install applications. Banning an application from the app store is tantamount to banning it from the platform. (Jailbreaking isn't widespread enough to count.) If Apple simply ran an app store without the monopoly lock on applications, I'd have no problem whatsoever with its behavior.
I won't buy an iPhone. But most of the software engineers I work with, who appreciate the freedom their linux desktops give them, either own one or are about to buy one.
Executable code: includes javascript? I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)
You cannot load executable code.
I'm not really sure how to interpret "load executable code". Is there non-executable code? What makes it code, then?
Browsers load and execute javascript. Is javascript not code, or is it not executed, or does it break the rules, or is there some option I'm missing?
Is GLSL also code? That means you can't run third party color filters like the compiz plugin which simulates colorblindness. I'm sure that's an important restriction... wait, what?
Can anyone explain to me what "load executable code" does and doesn't cover? And even better, what's the motivation for the distinction?
Re:Executable code: includes javascript? I'm confu (Score:3, Interesting)
An important distinction here is that JavaScript code is known to be properly sandboxed by Apple and AT&T. This is also OK for the Sega games running as emulation of the original ROM; That is no different from a game app that has a data file in it. The problem comes when you allow users to load any code they want into a potentially unprotected environment. Then, this becomes a liability issue.
Apple wrote the JavaScript engine that runs on the iPhone. If there are flaws, they can push updates to fix it, or if it's severe enough disable some or all JavaScript until a fix can be made. The implications here are staggering - suppose a bug gets out into the wild which involves a JavaScript 'sploit followed by a 3G DDoS attack. AT&T's whole network becomes saturated, iPhone or not. This can disrupt E911 services. Because of a JavaScript bug, someone might die. It's unlikely, but if it happens it's a HUGE liability. Everyone from the family of the deceased to the state would have a stake in that lawsuit.
Apple has a failsafe here - they can shut it down before it spins out of control because they have access to the code. They can push updates out before their phones become an army of virus-spewing BlueTooth devices nailing ever PC (or even Mac) they come with in 30 feet of.
Now imagine it happens through a bug in this Commadore 64 App, or any other App that would allow executable code. Apple has little control over that, much less so than if a flaw was their own problem. Don't get me wrong, Apple has a good reputation for security, they build solid products, and what I describe here is very unlikely to happen.
...but it's not impossible.