Slashdot Mirror
Apple Pulls C64 Emulator From the App Store
Rob Hearn sends in a piece up at PocketGamer.co.uk on why Apple suddenly pulled Manomio's C64 emulator soon after finally approving it. (El Reg has coverage too.) "It was a glorious few moments for retro gamers when Manomio's C64 emulator was finally approved by Apple and released to the eager, nostalgic iPhone public. Then, calamity! It was gone again. Apparently some wily users figured out how to access the Commodore 64 BASIC system that was originally packaged with the emulator — something that Apple wasn't too happy with, given the nature of the interpreter's code. By setting the keyboard to 'always on,' launching a game and restarting BASIC, players got into the 'empty shell' of their C64 emulator."
Seriously? What? What can you do from a C64 shell on an iPhone?
I have never been much of a believer in Stallman's dystopian visions but I'm getting closer to believing them.
As it seems, Apple tries REALLY hard to surpass Microsoft on the list of the most hated IT companies. This stunt they just pulled with the C64 emulator is pure idiocy!
When it comes to proprietary lock-in. Styling and hype is much more exciting than philosophical and economical arguments for having an open platform. I encourage anyone with appreciation of these issues to boycott closed platforms like the iPhone, consoles, and set top cable boxes.
Spur an interest in programmable platforms and maybe get people interested in being more than just a passive consumer of whatever crap Apple wants to shovel at them through iTunes.
I submit that anyone that conceivable _could_ do any damage of any significant nature through the BASIC interpreter on a C64 emulator on an iPhone has almost certainly already jail broken their phone and are already doing much wackier things. Further, if they haven't, then this provides further incentive to jailbreak.
Add to that the PR nightmare of constantly pulling the same app repeatedly, and it should make both users and developers feel increasingly gun shy about the app store.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
Um...the coding of C64 software was ALL ABOUT using peek and poke in unintended ways!
Unlike the iPhone though, that's the whole cost. The iPhone's "real" price is buried in the mandatory contract. Outside of the U.S., you don't have a phone bundled with the plan, but the plan itself is cheaper. So yes, it costs $650 (or equivalent local currency), but the plan only runs $20-40/month, not $60-70/month. Over two years, you will have paid quite a bit more for the iPhone. And if you choose not to upgrade after two years, the savings over the iPhone accrue even faster.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
No seriously. Apple hates geeks. This isn't flamebait, btw.
Apple loves the image-conscious, visual-creative crowd that accepts the functionality they're given, wrapped up in beautifully designed packages.
But ultimately Apple's corporate strategy can be summed up in one word: Control. They want to control where you buy your music, what you do with your devices, and how you interact with other users. All of this 'control' of course is driven by profit motives.
But geeks ultimately represent a loss of control. Geeks love to tinker... They love to expand functionality. They're innovators. And worst of all from Apple's perspective: They create options.
Options are the enemy of a carefully structured system which drives users towards Apple's sacred points-of-purchase.
Options are the opposite of 'control'.
For all of Apple's "Think Different" public image, the reality is that Apple encourages nothing of the sort: "Think Alike" is the mission. And they prove it at every turn.
Apple fanboys will probably mod this flamebait. It isn't. I have multiple computers and phones, and own an iPhone and a Mac. But I'm constantly being made aware that my PC represents a nearly infinite amount of options in every usage category -- where Apple railroads me into a pre-approved (albeit always compatible) solution.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
This is a non-story. They weren't allowed to sell the app because it had BASIC. They snuck BASIC in, and Apple pulled it since they weren't allowed to sell it.
This is not news.
We don't need the "Apple should allow..." discussion. We had that 2 days ago when this was approved. And the last app that did something. And two before. And the next one.
This isn't a story. "Apple does exactly what it said it would." Call CNN.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Yeah, I agree. The developer is a grade-A moron. Initially, the App was rejected because of this and after lots of back and forth Apple approved it with a condition of removing the BASIC interpreter. Developer thought it would be cute to hide, and make it available as an easter egg. Guess that plan backfired.
Without a doubt, they needlessly burned a lot of money because of lost potential sales. Apple might even return the favor by dragging its feet and not approving the app for weeks or months.
More and more companies are looking to Apple as an example on how to lock down their platforms.
True. Hopefully some others will come up with a better model that provides the advantages of the iPhone's lock-in without the disadvantages.
The only real solution is to legalize and strengthen fair use, so that jail breaking and other DRM circumvention is completely legal and encouraged.
That actually won't matter much. The real solution is to deal with the antitrust issues in adjacent markets so we can have properly operating competition and someone can make a better solution without having to kowtow to AT&T and the MPAA and RIAA and several other criminal gatekeepers.
The US and other governments should also declare Apple's App Store to be an illegal monopoly for their platform...
That's not how antitrust law should or does work. The iPhone is only one (admittedly high profile) player in a very large and diverse marketplace. Apple has done nothing to undermine any market in their technical decisions for the iPhone (although some of their partners have). In terms of antitrust law, in fact, Apple is one of the victims being forced to make choices that get them fewer sales because of illegal actions by their partners.
If people don't like iPhones being locked down, they can effectively vote with their wallets and buy any number of other phones both for use on AT&T's network or another. Apple has, in no way leveraged any monopoly influence in any market in what they're doing with the ecosystem for apps on the iPhone.
If you want a versatile, easy to use, high end phone, but don't want more than that, get an iPhone. If you want a real smartphone, get a real smartphone. If Apple doesn't want to sell a general purpose smart handheld, that's their prerogative. There's plenty of options right now.
Really now, it's not like the iPhone is a closed black-box environment, for which no outsider can create software.
However, in these modern times with object-oriented multithreaded programming, BASIC is kind of a throwback, don't you think? It may have been nice as the "gateway drug" of programming languages, but these days it's barely a first step.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend Apple here; their decision to decline any app with programmability is still a curious, regrettable, and philosophically indefensible one. (Do symbolic environments count, like you'd find on a programmable calculator? What if that environment allowed the display of English text? What if the environment had English equivalents for some symbols?) But it is possible for people to buck the trend.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Your post reminds me of the hundreds of "the iPod is dead, here is its successor" posts that I read back in the day.
I'm just sayin'.
In a way, if you're a big enough geek he's right.
And, if you're a big enough fan of Apple's elegant UI design, he's wrong. But, if you hate Apple, he's right. But... I think you get my point.
There will be tons of anecdotal evidence supporting or refuting his claim but the simple fact remains - it's an incredibly similar claim, with the exact same anecdotal evidence supporting and refuting, that has been made about the iPod a thousand times before. And we know how those claims played out.
No, I'm not claiming the iPhone is untouchable. No, I'm not claiming it's perfect (I don't own one despite wanting one very much - the contract terms through Rogers (in Canada) are so unfavourable that I'd rather do without). I'm not claiming that it's the best smart phone available nor am I claiming that there aren't other smart phones that are better, for a variety of reasons. What I am claiming is that when someone says "here's the iPhone-killer", I immediately shunt virtually everything that follows into the same category as posts about iPod-killers, which is to say I ignore them.
If people need to hype their product by claiming it's an iPhone-killer, then it probably isn't. The iPhone-killer won't need to sell itself as such - it will just come out and be more successful than the iPhone, on it's own merits.
Millions might be a tad high there Obi-wan.
There's probably a total of two people who own an iphone/touch and bought the app and actually planned on doing something with the C64 BASIC.
Most of the people complaining probably wouldn't even think of owning anything Apple and BASIC is just something for them to make a show of why they'll never own an iPhone (and to look "cool" to all their F/OSS friends while doing so).
OMG! They pulled an app I'd never buy from a phone I'll never own over a feature I'd never use!!! I must complain loudly and vigorously to show how hardcore linux I am!
It isn't about the hardware, it's about the marketing. Apple has been selling hardware that costs more than the other brands do for a long time - because of clever marketing.
"But this one goes to 11!"
It's not called "jailbreaking". It's called "Run/Stop - Restore".
The CB App. What's your 20?