Slashdot Mirror
Licensed C64 Emulator Rejected From App Store
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."
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":
The idea was corrosive back then, and it remains corrosive today. Knock it the fuck off.
Apple is about quality first and they are just holding back the release date until the iPhone's cassette tape inferface is ready.
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.
...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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!