Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Licensed C64 Emulator Rejected From App Store

Posted by Soulskill on from the insufficient-quantities-of-hip dept.

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."

36 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Editorialise much ? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not an "excuse", it's clearly against the terms of the *agreement* the developer *agreed* to *before* starting work on it.

    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

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Editorialise much ? by QuoteMstr · · 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":

      And spite of Pride, in erring Reason's spite,
      One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right.

      The idea was corrosive back then, and it remains corrosive today. Knock it the fuck off.

    2. Re:Editorialise much ? by daVinci1980 · · 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).

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    3. Re:Editorialise much ? by onefriedrice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not seeing this as an ethical issue. I may wish that Apple's terms of use for the iPhone were more accepting of a particular type of application, but all developers know the terms before they even start coding. This case is different from Sega because this one interprets arbitrary code while Sega's apps run hard-coded ROMs. The term arbitrary is important, and it clearly means that this app is indeed against Apple's terms of inclusion into their store.

      Does it suck? Yeah. Unethical? That's a stretch...

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    4. Re:Editorialise much ? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the contrary, I've owned and sold companies even. I have a *lot* of experience with contracts at a reasonably high level, which is why I stressed the importance of getting something in writing.

      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.

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    5. Re:Editorialise much ? by Thing+1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      [...] or collude to fix prices.

      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...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:Editorialise much ? by drsquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And what exactly is so important about the app store that it cannot be bypassed?

    7. Re:Editorialise much ? by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 3, 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.

    8. Re:Editorialise much ? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      And what exactly is so important about the app store that it cannot be bypassed?

      Profit.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    9. Re:Editorialise much ? by DeBaas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Me too. I'm waiting for the obligatory "The 1980s called and they want their language back" jokes. :o)

      Even the 1980's don't want that language back

      --
      ---
  2. I voted the story down.. by azgard · · Score: 4, 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?

    1. Re:I voted the story down.. by onefriedrice · · 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).

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
  3. Backwards, I hope by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 4, Funny

    An iPhone emulator that runs on a Commodore 64? Color me surprised!

    Hopefully this means that I can upgrade my old boxes by emulating dual core processors on them. Links, anyone? ;)

    -b

    --
    No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  4. Running specific or arbitrary code? by MtHuurne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I recall correctly, the limitation in the SDK license is that Apple will not allow an interpreter that runs arbitrary code. That would mean that an interpreter that executes a single hardwired game does not violate the license.

    1. Re:Running specific or arbitrary code? by MtHuurne · · Score: 5, Informative

      After reading the article and the Manomio's site, I get the impression that they do not run arbitrary code, but they do download the game images separately from the emulator, which the license does not allow.

    2. Re:Running specific or arbitrary code? by laird · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. Congrat's on being the only person in the discussion to read the article.

      Apple did not reject the app because of emulation. Apple rejected the app because it contains a C64 Store that looks like it bypasses the Apple Store, allowing users to download C64 software straight into the emulator. That's prohibited, whether it's interpreted or compiled.

      All of this was clear in Apple's rejection notice, quoted in the actual article.

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
  5. GET THE FACTS: Not rejected from the App Store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple is about quality first and they are just holding back the release date until the iPhone's cassette tape inferface is ready.

  6. Re:Read the article much ? by Bluecobra · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you RTFA, you will find that Manomio contacted Apple Europe before developing the app and they "seemed really excited". So here we have yet another developer wasting time and money just to have Apple reject another application despite approving others that do the same thing. I really hope Manomio decides to port his C64 app to the Android instead so some of us can enjoy it.

  7. Oh, don't be an idiot. by danaris · · 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...

    • Is there any proof of this?
    • Even if there is, there is a distinct difference between an emulator packaged with a single ROM, such that it can only run that one game, and an emulator designed to, well, emulate the full capabilities of a system.

    So get the hell off your high horse already and live in the real world.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. by QuoteMstr · · 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!

    2. Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. by Trahloc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. While Apple has the right to reject the emulator from their own store I refuse to accept that they have the right to bar this person from developing any product he wants for it. Just because a wrench is designed for a 5/8" bolt doesn't mean you can't use it as a pry bar, but that is specifically what Apple is trying to do with their "EULA" of the SDK and I find that reprehensible.

      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.

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
    3. Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. by mustafap · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    4. Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. by R3d+M3rcury · · 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.

  8. Re:The hell are they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. Idiotic Summary by MWoody · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Idiotic Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only way a C64 program could "break out" is if the emulator has a security hole - and how is this different from any other app? sendmail and BIND aren't emulators, yet they've had tons of security holes.

    2. Re:Idiotic Summary by eddy · · Score: 4, Informative

      >But let's not start reviling them for merely following their stated policy.

      If they are following their stated policy, explain how "sid player" was okayed, since it's an emulator that interprets executable code, which is downloaded on-the-fly.

      I think the problem people have with the appstore, is that Apple enforce their policies using dice.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
  10. What would they do with an Apple ][ emulator? by dmmiller2k · · 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 ...

    --

    "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

  11. What is "executable code"? by Opportunist · · 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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What is "executable code"? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, 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.

  12. Re:Read the article much ? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope so too. I'm not defending Apple here as much as defending the rightness of enforcing a contract. As I point out above, I don't believe he contacted Apple Europe anyway, because if he did he'd have something in writing along the lines of "Yes, you can develop your emulator and we will let you load it onto the iPhone".

    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

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  13. Re:Right idea, wrong reason by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    So, you're saying that whining on Slashdot is actually useful?

    The mind boggles, it does.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  14. Rights vs Support by danaris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The device was sold specifically without that capability, so why is modding it to do so seen as a right?

    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

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  15. Re:Obligatory Edsger Dijkstra by Nutria · · Score: 4, 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).

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  16. Re:Obligatory Edsger Dijkstra by dzfoo · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  17. Executable code: includes javascript? I'm confused by jonaskoelker · · Score: 3, 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?