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 hope they get it sorted out, but frankly the poor quality selection of games for it has taken some of the shine off the app, especially without basic.
10 PRINT "HELLO, WORLD!"
20 GOTO 10
i'm adding this text to get past the anti-caps filter
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Try to take over the world.
Best Slashdot Co
For technophiles, the iPhone is dead. The n900, with it's Debian-based-OS and open platform, is our new lord and savior. http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/
Caffeine is my anti-drug!
Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
Having the C64 Basic interpreter as a programming environment on the iphone would strategically hurt Apple in horrible way....
Riiiiight
I have never been much of a believer in Stallman's dystopian visions but I'm getting closer to believing them.
Get over it, really....
Id be tempted at this point to just release the sucker in the wild and post up links to any and all places anyone who might even *slightly* want a c64 emulator for the iPhone might be, after restoring the BASIC functionality as it was in the c64. Just to spite em.....
Where the C64 emulator becomes THE preferred programming environment on the iphone as Apple neglects to understand the nature of the threat...causing a renisannce in C64 programming; catapulting a once dead platform from the grave back into stardom...
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.
Damn so it's forbidden to release any app that can actually some Turing complete code? I guess a Brainfuck app for the iPhone is out of the question too then!
... by releasing crippleware.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
They are still bitter that C64 games were better than Apple ][e games back in the day...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
If this was intentional, I can imagine Apple would be none too happy. Might even yank the developer's credentials. If it's an oversight, I'm surprised it got by testers.
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
...they learned how to jailbreak their Commodore 64 too...
Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
More and more companies are looking to Apple as an example on how to lock down their platforms. Expect other companies (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc.) to start doing the same type of lockdown with their devices/OS. So, unless you plan on living in a cave the rest of your life counting your toes, boycotting flagship tech companies is not practical. The only real solution is to legalize and strengthen fair use, so that jail breaking and other DRM circumvention is completely legal and encouraged.
Once you jailbreak an iPhone and iPod Touch, it becomes an awesome portable Unix device. I have jailbroken nearly a dozen iPhones/iPodTouches for friends and family, and tell everyone to do the same.
I am still very disappointed that Google did not release their Google Voice app onto the Cydia, Icy, and other alternative app stores.
The US and other governments should also declare Apple's App Store to be an illegal monopoly for their platform and force Apple to allow other app stores to work without jailbreaking/hacking their devices.
the power of POKE.
And rightly, too. It's iPhone red pill.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
"By setting the keyboard to 'always on', launching a game and restarting BASIC, players got into the 'empty shell' of their C64 emulator."
---
Next thing you know they'll block my app that allows users to connect a cassette tape drive. The nerve....
10 Print "I love Line numbers!"
20 Goto 10
So how open is the n900 going to be?
The Pre is nifty, but a large chunk of the OS and all of the base applications are proprietary Palm stuff. So it's pretty darn close, but we're just not quite there yet.
Is there any chance of having the base install for the n900 be completely FOSS? I wish I had the time to hack on phones and write this stuff myself, but (like a lot of other people) I keep on finding my schedule too busy to get started.
It's 2009 and I can buy a laptop that runs a FOSS OS and FOSS applications pretty much perfectly. When can we have the same for a phone?
coding is life
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 : )
They took it down because it could give users of the application choice, Apple is all about not giving the user choice.
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.
Naughty naughty Apple children, you have been misbehaving and Mommy and Daddy are going to have to take your shiny new toy away until you learn to behave. We are very disappointed and this is why you can't have nice things.
Now run along, and don't think we don't know you have been reading those reviews of Android-based phones - we found the magazines under your bed. No you can't have an HTC Hero.
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.
Commodore's BASIC was licensed from Microsoft with a one-time fee. If I were Apple, I wouldn't let Microsoft BASIC anywhere NEAR this emulator until I got a signed legal document from Microsoft saying that the license covered all derivatives of the Commodore device, or that Apple had a free and clear right to use it.
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.
...a C64 SDK so that people could bundle up their favorite archived games or write their own to be included in the software library for this package.
The CB App. What's your 20?
The "No (non-native) interpreters" rule is so Apple can get more money out of developers (the $100 fee to develop on hardware/put in their store)
The availability of basic opens doors for users to create games/utilities while bypassing the store and fees.
This is why some of the emu games must re-package the emulator for each game (pack).
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
I wish he would post it to Cydia
I remember using PEEK and POKE to manipulate the memory on the C64. Is the emulator sufficiently sandboxed or could you use POKE outside of the conventional memory to brick^H^H^H^H^Hfree your iPod?
Allowing a command line like this would ruin your Iphone experience.
Because Stevie Boy controls all aspects of your existences experience.
Sick of stupidity? http://www.patentlystupid.com
10 Submit $MYAPPLICATION
20 GOTO 10
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
...clever, useful, amusing, seems to be on Apple's kill list. Makes the famous 1984 ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 something less of a promise and more of a PALE LIE.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
If people don't like iPhones being locked down, they can effectively vote with their wallets and buy any number of other phones
Which smartphones sold in the United States aren't locked down?
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!
There is much about Apple's computer products that are very geek-friendly. For instance the OS X kernel is based on Unix and Mach and is open source. Portions of OS X are closed, making it less geek-friendly than Linux or BSD, but it is more geek-friendly than Windows. I can go tinker around in the core of the kernel if I want to.
In addition Apple provides their full development environment--Xcode--with every single copy of their OS. That does not strike me as being anti-tinkering. My copy of Windows XP did not include Visual Studio. I'm no developer but I've fired up Xcode a few times and messed around for fun.
Apple is much more restrictive on their phone platform than their computing platform. But even there, they have not gone after a single jail-breaker. They won't support it but they don't attack it. If I want to hack my own phone I am confident I'm not going to get sued or something.
Where they are restrictive is in the officially supported SDK and distribution for the phone platform. They may think they have good reasons, but it is frustrating. But, I do not think it is fair to let that frustration escalate into a broad statements like "Apple hates geeks." There is a lot of ground between total freedom and "hate."
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Or developing an iTunes-like app in BASIC? or maybe a VoiceOverIP client?
Damn you Apple! and I say this as a happy iPhone 3G owner :-)
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
It has nothing to do with that. And it really doesn't matter what reason Apple has. The point is moot because people IN POSSESSION of these phones don't actually OWN them, Apple does. Welcome to the iphOwn.
I understand there are a lot of Android fans here, and I am one of them, but for Android to get anywhere it'll need better hardware. I played with my friend's T-Mobile G1, it is really good, but not as good as a first attempt as the iPhone.
For the Android to be successful as the iPhone, Google needs to have more control over the hardware and not let everything to the handset makers, the software also needs some polish. Not as elegant of a UI as the iPhone, some UI responses don't feel as smooth as they should be. Safe to say, Android is better than Windows Mobile 6.1, and Microsoft has been trying for a decade or so!
Will Android be dominant in years to come? probably so, but if it ever fails will be due to Google's lack of a vision of where to go with it and leaving it to the OEMs to decide. Part of what makes the iPhone works is the high integration between software and hardware, Android needs to follow suit without losing its openness and that would be Google's challenge.
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
After all, Commodore licensed it from Microsoft. That means that they either need to license it from (what's left of) Commodore, or Microsoft, or probably both since Commodore probably have their own I/O code in there. That's a better reason to pull it than "being an interpreter".
It shouldn't be too hard to at least zero out the parts of the ROM that correspond to the BASIC interpreter, and only include 6502-code apps with it. Yes, they will probably have to hack a loader into every game to make up for the C64's lack of autoboot. But when there's no BASIC interpreter in there at all, there's no BASIC interpreter to break in to.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1360395&cid=29343587
See this comment for my assumption regarding the BASIC interpreter. I knew they couldn't remove the interpreter without breaking compatibility.
Why the hell does apple care if i can run basic on a C64 emulator, or an Atari 800... I suppose they also ban any languages but their blessed ones? ( like python or java for example )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1360395&cid=29345727
Way to go guys, you're so smart and quick that you're idiots.
Interestingly enough, they sold an extra copy of it yesterday to me because, predicting this would happen, I wanted to get a copy before they took it down.
I wouldn't have bought it otherwise, while its cool from a geek perspective, playing C64 games on a touch screen sucks a predictable amount of ass.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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.
I agree. I also think it's funny that the grandparent anonymous coward got labeled a troll for saying something similar to you, only with less eloquence.
While it's possible he thought the feature was truly gone and locked away, my guess is he was trying to be cute and leave it there as an Easter Egg.
It stinks on a few levels.
On one hand Apple's policies are draconian. Rejecting things left and right, some of which really should be released. It would be one thing if the Apple store was only a possible venue to get apps (like how I can get music from anywhere for my iPod) but being the only game in town AND locking everything out is annoying.
On the other hand I can see some of what Apple is trying to do. It's a private market so free speech doesn't apply: they can prohibit "Adult" content and stupid apps if they want, on top of things that might violate the security of the device. Trojans, malware, viruses, etc. The store is their sandbox and they can do what they want... but having only 1 sandbox is restrictive.
Back to the original topic, they guy shot himself in the foot. He probably tried to be cute and is now probably on Apple's blacklist, meaning his apps will probably get accepted at an even slower rate (if ever).
Instead of whining about Apple being a bunch of morons with world domination urges, get a better more free phone. At best the whining will bring a temporary change but the company culture itself is more or less set in stone. Control.
HTTP/1.1 400
Apple's doing what they've done for years... limiting the amount of information and freedom they give to programmers and ordinary people who buy their products. For a long time when the Mac came out you couldn't "talk" to the hardware directly (or get any docs for it), you had to use hardware functions via the apple exposed and documented API, and apple would fight you creating and distributing any program that did otherwise. That's why I never bought a Mac... the interface was very good, much better for a long time than the PC/Windows interface, but the trade-offs in freedom weren't worth it.
Same thing nowadays with the iPhone... you can get this neat phone with a super cool interface and great responsiveness... frankly it's a great product. But you can't do just anything you want with it, despite the fact you paid for it and now own it. You have to use the cell network provider apple approves, pay apple's prices, sell your app via Apple's store (okay, they may not require this, but they don't support easy sales any other way, so it's effectively a requirement) and follow apple's rules for acceptable application behavior.
Sure, they can list semi-acceptable business reasons for wanting this kind of control (want to make sure apps all work/are high quality, want to make sure network connectivity is good, etc) but the real reason for the restrictions is the same one it's always been.
Apple makes a lot of their money by exercising tight control over not just their products' design and software, but how they're sold and used... a level of control which, if most people were told about it up front, would make them very, very uncomfortable. But of course all you hear about up front is how cool the product is.
So I'm still boycotting Apple products... which hurts sometimes because frankly they're pretty cool... Apple really broke the industrial design mold with iMac, and hasn't looked back.
But Apple the corporation has always made a lot of money by taking away little bits of freedom here and there. It's amazing that otherwise intelligent geeks don't seem to recognize this nowadays... they've been doing this as long as Macs have been out. I guess it's more important to have a cool toy than to recognize that they're being taken for a ride by a large corporation.
Apple... business as usual since 1984... and that's not a coincidence.
Erik
Everyone on Slashdot seems to think the developer intentionally left an obvious, easy backdoor into the BASIC interpreter just to spite Apple.
But here's what I'm wondering: is it actually possible to remove BASIC from the C64's ROM, and still be sure that games will run?
If I recall correctly, the in-ROM BASIC interpreter provided a bunch of useful routines that you could access from machine code, and a lot of games and apps would call into these routines, or copy them elsewhere in memory, sometimes in ways that would seem horrifically non-portable and non-obvious today. It might be that it's just not really possible to excise the BASIC interpreter and still run a decent number of games.
I haven't done much C64 in many years though. Can anyone fill us in on the technical feasibility of completely removing the BASIC interpreter?
My bicyles
Dragging their feet deliberately sounds shady, if not illegal. IANAL, but I think a developer could take Apple to court to sue for lost sales, couldn't he?? (I mean, in the event he resubmits the app again, w/o the interpreter)
I personally think Apple should stick to some kind of rule as to how long a developer has to wait before the app is approved, and pay out monetary damages in case it's been months and the app hasn't been approved yet (Google Voice comes to mind).
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
I believe at least one of the problems is that with access to the basic interpreter could be used to start something that Apple hasn't controlled.
There, fixed that for you.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
They started as the counter-culture, making "blue box" calls and screwing AT&T. Now they're the establishment; but they remember what it was like being on the other side. There's nothing quite so oppressive as a former revolutionary. The real excitement now is in making "blue box" calls charged to AT&T and Apple. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
... the iPhone really does do more than a lot of Phones out there. It has way more apps than the Pre or Android, and can currently do more than either of them with these apps. There has been and continues to be a problem with Apple's approval process, along with the idea that Apple should even have an approval process, but claiming otherwise the iPhone is not a smart phone is simply karma whoring catering to iPhone haters.
One day, if Apple doesn't fix this process, the Pre and Android will surpass them, but not yet. Being able to run background apps when there aren't enough apps worth running in the background doesn't count as a killer feature.
The average iPhone user is not put out by the C64 emulator not being available and if they cry like babies for it, they should be slapped about. There's plenty more maintain their interest and far more important things than to rehash games from 20 years ago (oy why do you insist on reliving the past! OY! ;)).
However, I really feel for the developers who are truly suffering here. Way too many apps are taking too long to be approved and are being rejected because Apple's secretive policies. How can you make money on a crap shoot of a policy? With tens of thousands of apps, any a rejection of say 1%, that's roughly hundreds of developers who keep getting rejected. To apple and the average user that's not much, but to a developer that's not something that can be relied on to sustain me if I can't get my apps out quickly.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
And you can. Jail break it. End of story.
The CB App. What's your 20?
And this, my friends is why I will never, ever own an iPhone. The ability to remotely disable software on a product you or I own is not acceptable.
I'm sorry, it just isn't.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Shouldn't have to, it should support me doing what i want with it out of the box.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But it's a C64 emulator... you could just write your own ROM, how is that any different than BASIC?
I don't think the emulator runs arbitrary, user supplied ROMs. My understanding was it would only run the ROMs supplied by Manomio through their server connection.
Dragging their feet deliberately sounds shady, if not illegal. IANAL, but I think a developer could take Apple to court to sue for lost sales, couldn't he?? (I mean, in the event he resubmits the app again, w/o the interpreter)
He already has his app approved, and was discovered trying to break his contract with Apple.
So no, you can't really sue someone whom you broke a contract with. (Well, you CAN sue, but you will not win.)
Additionally, apple already approved it. It is no one but the devs fault he isn't making money on it right now.
If someone kept trying to screw you over, would you be so willing to let them skip to the front of the line to do it again? Or would you rightly say 'You will not get priority over the developers who CAN follow the rules and contract agreement'?
A lot of commercial C64 games were even written in C64 BASIC. The one that immediately springs to mind is Sword of Fargoal, published by Epyx, Inc, one of the biggest computer game publishers in the 80's, i.e. the age of the Commodore 64.
If you removed BASIC from the C64, that game (and many others) couldn't possibly run.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
If you had a C64 and did any sort of programming on it you would know that the basic interpreter was just a rom mapped to a section of the under lying ram space. You could flip the basic interpreter rom image in or out as you saw fit by using assember code.
"Assembler" code. IE the 6502 machine code.
Most games boot from Basic - so probably not without a lot of re-working the interpreter itself.
Of course if you could boot games, you could always boot normal basic as well ;).
I honestly think they don't like it because its a program that lets you run ad-hoc games from whoever for free, not because its a software platform.
I only use [my SDTV] as a big external monitor when I want to watch videos or play games from my laptop
But how many laptops have SDTV outputs? All I see lately are VGA and HDMI; one needs a converter box to scan-convert a VGA signal to NTSC S-Video. Besides, not a lot of major-label PC games are designed for a TV (e.g. large fonts, gamepad support), probably because not enough people have such converter boxes.
and occasionally watch broadcast television.
Unless the SDTV is from about 2006 or later, you still need a set-top box to turn an ATSC signal into NTSC S-Video.
I particularly never bought and don't buy Apples products... they are very expensive, and not so better than any other similar, rather today the PCs are quite better then any Mac. Now have a strict control over any application isn't wise, because now there are one IPhone boom, but soon every mobile company will provide something like IPhone clones with many more resources and softwares and with accessible prices. I don't know why that everything from Apple is a big news, for my if they won't have many apps for your mobiles, because they can't have multi-task, it's problem for the person who bought one those, and more... I'm pretty sure that exist today many more market to sale mobile apps to Nokia and Blackberries than IPhone.
This is just another reason why Android is going to take over the IPhone. The open system implemented by google will destroy mobile OSX in the not to distant future. 20(ish) handsets are coming out this year that can do so many things the I phone can not.
I'm thinking they could possibly patch the BASIC implementation to make sure the human cannot interact with it, rather than removing it entirely.
There's some code in there responsible for reading line-oriented input into the program buffer..
As I understand it, the emulator app didnt let you just run any C64 ROM you want... only games you buy through the app itself (you get 5 games buying the app).
Since you can't boot arbitrary files (You can only boot the C64 games you buy), you can't boot a BASIC image, since the authors of the app don't make a BASIC image available for purchase.
Apple probably doesn't like it because it will let you PEEK and POKE to the first 64KB of your iPhone's memory, and that's where Steve Jobs hides all of his best ideas.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If that is the case, I'm definitely not most people here. I have both an iPhone and a C64, and would love to be programming C64 stuff on the iPhone. It just sounds like so much fun. I was sad to see that I missed downloading it before it got pulled :( (especially after finding out there's a way to hack it to use BASIC)
I think you're a little harsh on people here. There's a lot of nostalgia when it comes to the C64, even among those who eventually bought something that Apple made.
meh. arrogant developers left BASIC in when it's a clear violation of the terms.
this was on their blog, but it's gone now
http://www.manomio.com/index.php/blog/c64_the_wait_is_over
"We had agreed with Apple to remove basic from the application, but as we believed it would be possible to convince Apple to let it in later on, we left it in the app to be activated remotely by us when we had âoegoâ from Apple."
So Apple is afraid people are going to run programs in BASIC in a sandboxed virtual application emulating an 8-bit 6510 microproessor?
There's just no justifiable reason for this. Except...religion. It's like religious dietary restrictions, which serve to remind the faithful that they are members of the tribe.
Or maybe Apple just does it to keep the iPhone in the news, despite its lack of multi-processing, keyboard, or the freedom to install your own applications. Nah...it must be a religion.
If you had a C64 and did any sort of programming on it you would know that the basic interpreter was just a rom mapped to a section of the under lying ram space. You could flip the basic interpreter rom image in or out as you saw fit by using assember code.
Yes, I did have a C64, did do some programming with it, and do know that the BASIC interpreter ROM could be mapped in and out of the 64k memory space.
I'm not familiar with the code for any commercial programs... but I seem to recall having heard about lots of hacks that used routines in the BASIC ROM in lots of interesting ways... beyond just using it to boot.
And this is why I wonder just how much of the BASIC ROM can be excised from the emulator without severely hurting game compatibility.
My bicyles
I'm thinking they tried to do that, and didn't quite accomplish it. ;)
Although that brings up a question. Why not just say that? I wonder... did they think "we thought it could be approved later, so we left it in" would go over better than "we couldn't take it out without breaking certain games, so we tried to disable it and didn't anticipate this exploit". The latter makes it sound like a security hole, so maybe they didn't want to put it in quite that light.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Why? Just because something has an engine and wheels doesn't mean it's freeway legal, or even street legal. They've built a product and they're selling it in a particular circumstance. You can modify it as much as you want, but they don't have to support that if they don't want to.
Jailbreaking is simple, and even Woz does it. If you don't want to do that, don't buy the phone. Or if you do, quit yer whining.
I have no great love of corporations, but they can sell whatever they want, as long as they don't make false claims about it. When the iPhone came out, they were clear that there were no 3rd party apps, no SDK, and people still flocked to the phone. They knew sales would go through the roof when they introduced the SDK, and they did, and that addressed the needs of 99% of people who would buy the thing. The rest can take two seconds and jailbreak it and give up their support until and unless they reset it to factory defaults. What's the big whoop?
The CB App. What's your 20?