×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

277 comments

Editorialise much ? (4, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411567)

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

Re:Editorialise much ? (0, Troll)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411599)

Dear Troll,

Did you even read the article? The nod they got from Apple, and the minor detail wherein other apps already violate this selectively-enforced clause, giving the developer the idea that they'd be excused as well..?

Add more "quotes" to your "comment," it makes you seem "wiser." :P

Re:Editorialise much ? (2, Interesting)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411717)

Not a troll, just an opinion.

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:Editorialise much ? (1)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411779)

I guess you haven't dealt with real-world business or politics much..? Look up "selectively enforced." Yes, ok, despite what seems like a snide tone, i understand your feelings about a hard-line enforcement of the rules.

But those rules aren't being enforced consistently. Your tough tone and insinuations of conspiracy say to me you haven't encountered anyone caving in to high-level assurances - for which you should be grateful :). A "wink wink, nudge nudge" is a lot more dangerous than a contract, but you'd be surprised (and disgusted) with how much gets done that way.

Re:Editorialise much ? (5, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411889)

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.

Re:Editorialise much ? (1)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412019)

Okay, i see what you mean, and in that case I agree with you. That also makes it a lot clearer than your original post, you know.

Re:Editorialise much ? (5, Insightful)

daVinci1980 (73174) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411749)

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).

Re:Editorialise much ? (1)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411883)

Okay, i see the flaw in the original summary: i guess we'd need to see if any of the other apps cited can run arbitrary code.

I'm still giggling over the idea of the next hacktool being written in BASIC, tho.

Re:Editorialise much ? (2, Interesting)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411975)

What about arbitrary javascript on web pages? By your logic, a Flash player would be out of the question.

Re:Editorialise much ? (2, Interesting)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412215)

Hell, a browser would be out of the question (for the same reasons...)

Re:Editorialise much ? (1, Offtopic)

jfclavette (961511) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412229)

What about arbitrary javascript on web pages? By your logic, a Flash player would be out of the question.

Yes it would. Don't think for a second that Apple would let you sell your own browser of Flash plug-in. It doesn't mean that you are not allowed to use an existing Flash plugin or webbrowser tough.

Re:Editorialise much ? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28412265)

BASIC isn't code. It's not even script by today's standards.

Re:Editorialise much ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411821)

mod parent down

Re:Editorialise much ? (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411607)

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 [theotherpages.org]":

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.

Oh, don't be an idiot. (3, Insightful)

danaris (525051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411655)

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

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411789)

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!

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (2, Insightful)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411813)

That device didn't pretend to allow for complete customizability. It was sold as a device that could and couldn't do certain things. If someone doesn't like the lock Apple has on the application store, then they have the option of not buying the device.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (3, Insightful)

Trahloc (842734) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412017)

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.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412129)

Yep, and depending where you live jailbreaking is completely legal. Then, you can install and run whatever application you want to use.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28412095)

Contrast this opinion with the number of people who think it is their right to mod an xbox360 to run Linux, for instance. The device was sold specifically without that capability, so why is modding it to do so seen as a right?

Conversely, why is Microsoft's attempts to suppress modding seen as being so draconian, when they pale in comparison to what Apple does.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (2, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412139)

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.

As a former owner, Microsoft has no control over what I do with the device. If I sell a house, I have no say over whether the new owner paints all the rooms lime green and puts in red shag carpeting. It's not my house anymore. Likewise, when I buy a 360, it's not Microsoft's 360 anymore.

It's called "private property", and it's been part of Western culture for at least 6,000 years. The burden of proof is on you to show why I shouldn't be allowed to do what I want with my own property.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (1)

germ!nation (764234) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411853)

Controlling what is available via their own app store != controlling what people can run.

Did you really think that posting the phrase moral authority in bold would not get about 100k people smirk at your naivety? This is business, not some pen and paper debate on the ideology of product distribution.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411923)

Controlling what is available via their own app store != controlling what people can run.

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.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (1)

bathysphere (1570355) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412011)

Hmm. I'm actually quite sympathetic to the argument that electronics makers shouldn't be allowed to lock out homebrew uses of their devices, but you're confused in this case. Apple is refusing to distribute this application through their store. No one with half a brain would begrudge them this. The interesting moral and competitive question is whether or not Apple should be allowed to prevent other (non-Apple) app stores from distributing content to the device. And that's a hard question.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412099)

The interesting moral and competitive question is whether or not Apple should be allowed to prevent other (non-Apple) app stores from distributing content to the device. And that's a hard question.

Right. My original post just expressed frustrating with people being so comfortable that Apple can do this at all that they're reduced to arguing about little details of the unjustifiable approval scheme.

People, the problem here is not that Apple rejected a C64 emulator. The problem is that by rejecting it, Apple is preventing people from running the C64 emulator at all. I can't believe you've actually gotten used to the idea.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412145)

Apple doesn't have a monopoly, so they can do whatever the fuck they want.

Being "free" means exactly that other people are sometimes allowed to do stuff you don't like!

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412219)

Apple doesn't have a monopoly, so they can do whatever the fuck they want.

You don't need to have a monopoly to be anti-competitive. Nearly every cell phone company locks down its phones. Nobody can afford to open up the platform because that would mean that the company that did would be less competitive than the one that didn't. (It wouldn't have all that app store revenue.)

Nevertheless, the world would be a better place if mobile platforms in general were open. But because the market can't deliver that result, we need regulation to do it.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412319)

Jailbreak the device and install your own apps - apple doesn't really stop you from doing this.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412369)

Jailbreak the device and install your own apps - apple doesn't really stop you from doing this.

Apple tries its hardest to stop jailbreaker, and you know damn well that ordinary people won't and can't jailbreak their phones.

If Apple provided a simple switch allowing installation of applications from outside the app store, I'd have no problem with the app store's rejection policy. But they don't, so I do.

Re:Oh, don't be an idiot. (1, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411867)

This is an app that should never have even been started, because it very clearly violates the SDK agreement

Apple UK didn't seem to think it violated the SDK agreement, as they gave the go-ahead (As per the article). It was only later that the app was rejected when it was submitted to the app-store.


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

I live in the real world. My real world has people being behind agreements (multiple people with competing interests), not them being a series of arbitrarily laws that are followed in a vacuum without looking at the larger picture. I suspect what will happen here is that either Apple will change its mind and allow this app, or the app will be slightly modified to satisfy Apple's requirements.

Re:Editorialise much ? (4, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411773)

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...

Re:Editorialise much ? (-1, Flamebait)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411805)

[Turns politeness gauge down a notch to reply in the same fashion as the parent post]

And I'm sick and tired of this entitlement meme. Here's another quote "Just because you can doesn't mean you ought to".

Look, you (and (s)he) haven't got a legal leg to stand on, so you want to claim some sort of moral or ethical stance instead - fuck off yourself.

If the iPhone doesn't do what you want it to do, or restricts you in any way that you don't like, then just don't fucking use it. How hard is that to understand ? What you don't get to do is agree to a contract and subsequently say "oh, but not for this little area here that means I can make a metric butt-load of cash because Apple's worked hard to make the device really popular".

Still sounds a lot (to me) like toys exiting a pram at high velocity.

Simon.

Re:Editorialise much ? (0, Flamebait)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411893)

If the iPhone doesn't do what you want it to do, or restricts you in any way that you don't like, then just don't fucking use it.

Oh, get off it yourself. There are many things we don't allow companies to do. They can't enslave people, dump acid into rivers, outright lie in advertisements, or collude to fix prices. Market mechanisms don't prevent companies from doing these things, so the law must. It's not enough to say "just don't use the product." We need something more powerful.

One more thing companies shouldn't be allowed to do is to make platforms and "reject" applications. Even if it's lucrative for Apple and a few developers, it's anticompetitive and harmful to society as a whole. Look at history: companies that create closed systems inevitably become rent-seeking parasites that stifle innovation.

Apple has a current legal basis for its behavior. But there's no reason it should continue to enjoy that privilege. Closed platforms like the iPhone ought to be regulated away.

Re:Editorialise much ? (1, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411993)

Ok, that just ended this discussion for me. You just seriously compared enslaving people with not being able to install a program on a phone. You clearly have a political agenda (which sounds nuts to me, btw!) Goodbye.

Simon

Re:Editorialise much ? (1, Interesting)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412039)

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 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411995)

The emo is strong in this child. Prozac... yes, you need it.

Apple's platform is exactly what a lot of people want. It's the way it is exactly because they are picky about what can run on it.

All those other regulations are on a completely different level. All you have to do is go buy a smart phone that allows you to install your own applications... but, waaah, they won't impress my friends, well, tough shit...

Re:Editorialise much ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28412009)

> One more thing companies shouldn't be allowed to do is to make platforms and "reject" applications.

Do you really want to open that can of worms?

To have the government be able to tell Wal-Mart that they MUST sell Green Day CDs?

Or, getting into First Amendment territory, tell a Jewish deli that they MUST sell ham?

Re:Editorialise much ? (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412071)

...the government be able to tell Wal-Mart that they MUST sell Green Day CDs?

Of course not. I have no problem with Apple rejecting any application it wants from the app store. What angers me is that Apple uses DRM to prevent other people from setting up competing app stores.

That effectively gives Apple veto power over all applications run on the iPhone, even ones that have nothing to do with Apple. I doubt you wouldn't be happy with giving Wal-Mart veto power over any music played, or Microsoft power to reject applications written for Windows. The method Apple uses to give itself this power, DRM, should be illegal.

Re:Editorialise much ? (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411895)

> And I'm sick and tired of this entitlement meme.

It's not "entitlement" to desire control of one's own property.

Yes: an iPhone becomes my property when I buy it.

So does a copy of "The Martian Chronicles" (on book, ebook or DVD).

Re:Editorialise much ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28412047)

Yes: an iPhone becomes my property when I buy it.

Not to the likes of Apple and the various media conglomerates. Hell, even Microsoft (Microsoft!) couldn't care less what you run on your Windows Mobile device. Cripes. Of course, then again, Microsoft doesn't care about your "user experience" so much, but nevertheless ...

Re:Editorialise much ? (1)

nhytefall (1415959) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412053)

> And I'm sick and tired of this entitlement meme.

It's not "entitlement" to desire control of one's own property.

Yes: an iPhone becomes my property when I buy it.

So does a copy of "The Martian Chronicles" (on book, ebook or DVD).

Does the iPhone becomes yours when you buy it? Yes... but only when that is the full retail price of the device. Purchasing it from AT&T with a 2 year guaranteed service contract for 200 bucks... is not full retail price. Further, just because you bought the device, does not mean you bought the software it runs. That, my friend, is licensed to you. The app store is a service owned by Apple, and licensed for your use, on their software, on their terms. Apple can decide to have whatever the hell they want in their store... without worrying about your hurt feelings, because the App Store is their property.

Re:Editorialise much ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28412131)

Apple can decide to have whatever the hell they want in their store... without worrying about your hurt feelings, because the App Store is their property.

Maybe ... but they're still dicks, any way you slice it, and that's why I decided to go for a G1 instead.

Re:Editorialise much ? (1)

nhytefall (1415959) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412175)

Maybe ... but they're still dicks, any way you slice it, and that's why I decided to go for a G1 instead.

And that... is the free market at work.

Re:Editorialise much ? (1)

danaris (525051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412301)

Apple can decide to have whatever the hell they want in their store... without worrying about your hurt feelings, because the App Store is their property.

Maybe ... but they're still dicks, any way you slice it, and that's why I decided to go for a G1 instead.

And thus does the free market work.

Wow, whodathunkit?

Dan Aris

Re:Editorialise much ? (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412199)

Does the iPhone becomes yours when you buy it? Yes... but only when that is the full retail price of the device.

Actually, I'd argue that it becomes my property either way. If I go to AT&T and purchase a contract, AT&T doesn't lease me the phone. I'm sold the phone. It looks like a sale, it's structured like a sale, and it's called a sale. That the contract is structured so as to recoup the cost of making that sale at a loss is irrelevant to the fact that the phone is now nevertheless my private property.

If the phone company really wants to retain ownership of the phone until the contract expires, then it needs to use a lease to express the concept. Leases are dependable, well-understood legal instruments that do exactly what the phone companies want.

Why don't cell phone companies just lease phones instead of selling them at a loss? Because everyone knows what a lease is, and customers would rightly scream bloody murder!

Re:Read the article much ? (5, Informative)

Bluecobra (906623) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411633)

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.

Re:Read the article much ? (2, Interesting)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411819)

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."

Re:Read the article much ? (1)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411899)

While technically possible, do you really think a developer went and 'blathered about his idea' in public, at an Apple store? Really?

Re:Read the article much ? (1)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411841)

Except that I'm not sure Apple knew exactly how they were going to implement this. An emulator with game packs, etc where the user couldn't arbitrarily upload his own ... anything may have flew. Perhaps they should have gone into some details and made sure their implementation wasn't outside the TOS. Or if they were counting of selectively enforced standards, gotten some assurance that they would be held under the standards they wanted before spending the dev time.

Re:Read the article much ? (4, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411943)

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

Re:Editorialise much ? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411905)

The thing is; can you really call this "executable code"? From the point-of-view of an iPhone, 6510 machine code is no more "executable code" than any random game parsing it's level data.

Re:Editorialise much ? (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412273)

This is pretty simple sega is not selling an emulator but rather a game which consists of game rom + emulator. If they were selling a general purpose sega emulator it would likely not be allowed by apple either.

I voted the story down.. (4, Insightful)

azgard (461476) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411571)

...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?

Because its shiney? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411605)

Honestly tho. The same people that complain about it are the same people that will line up to get the new iPhone. I'm looking at finally getting a smart phone but I have no want to switch to At&T so it will not the the iPhone but even if I was going to I don't think I would get one just because I don't like the limitations that are put on it.

Yes, because it's shiney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411849)

Shineyness has taken down empires before, and raised new ones.

Re:Because its shiney? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28412055)

Naw, I complain all the time on iphone apps being shot down and I've probably only held an iphone in my hands for at most 5 minutes. I've also never bought an apple product and don't ever plan too. But I do recommend them to friends and family, I just don't want them for myself.

Re:I voted the story down.. (5, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411701)

...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).

Right idea, wrong reason (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411737)

The general pattern is:

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 (or no change at all like in the case of the eBook reader).

The stories are lame because the review system is a little subject to the whims of any given reviewer now, after two submissions that fail then I'd start saying it might be worthy of a story.

That said, this rejection does not fall into this pattern. The development guidelines have been very clear about emulators, they are not allowed. This was widely reported. I personally think the person who submitted the app did do because they knew they would get rejected, knew they would then get publicity, and say "Hey, I'm releasing on the Cydia App Store".

So you are right to vote this down, but not for the reasons you think... this story is pure marketing.

Re:Right idea, wrong reason (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412067)

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.

Re:I voted the story down.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28412249)

This is what likely happened: They told the "Apple UK" they were developing an emulator to sell games separately. This is what sega does, they sell the games, not the emulator.. they just happen to use an emulator behind the scenes.

What they actually are trying to do is sell an emulator, and let you run anything you want. It's completely different from the examples they cite. Hell, they even clearly display "play all your old favorite games, or even write your own!" on their web page.

The hell are they thinking? (2, Interesting)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411583)

What are they worried about, that a revival of BASIC will crowd out Apple market share...? Or did Sega maybe have a quiet word with Apple about the competition?

Re:The hell are they thinking? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411675)

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.

Re:The hell are they thinking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411747)

This is the real issue, and who cares? You either buy into the Apple monopoly or you don't. It will be short lived. Competition is already mounting and soon enough viable alternatives will exist.

Until then, it's Apple's house and you will live under Apples rules.

Re:The hell are they thinking? (2, Funny)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411811)

Aha, there's the rub. Why did you AC your comment...? That actually made sense. That *is* allowed here, you know.

Backwards, I hope (4, Funny)

greyhueofdoubt (1159527) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411587)

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

Re:Backwards, I hope (1)

cskrat (921721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411705)

I started doing that ages ago. Currently I have an Athlon 700 emulating an i7 at 4Ghz.

Running specific or arbitrary code? (4, Insightful)

MtHuurne (602934) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411619)

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.

Mod parent up informative/insightful (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411651)

Yah, the summary was written by someone who wasn't thinking things through very well.

Re:Running specific or arbitrary code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411757)

Yeah I agree. The app makers should look into bundling a copy of their C64 emulator with licenced C64 games and they should be ok. It's the arbitrary execution that is killing them.

Re:Running specific or arbitrary code? (5, Informative)

MtHuurne (602934) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411865)

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.

Re:Running specific or arbitrary code? (1)

Ann Coulter (614889) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412057)

Under this same limitation in the SDK license, a Turing machine simulator and a Wolfram rule 110 automaton program will both violate the license because they can run arbitrary code.

Re:Running specific or arbitrary code? (0)

CSLarsen (961164) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412091)

That also means that displaying PDF or Postscript files is a violation of the SDK license.

GET THE FACTS: Not rejected from the App Store (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411627)

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

Apple rejecting apps? Say it ain't so! (1)

SmackTheIgnorant (985978) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411637)

So, another article on Apple rejecting an iPhone app without real cause, or via a rule / regulation that contradicts another application. The solution I see it is one of several: 1 - Apple allowing the new app through, gaining additional income and being named as "the good guy" in this situation. Except some yackass will start complaining about not getting royalties for their software being in use and someone else profiting from the potential to use it. 2 - Apple will continue block the new app, not really caring about consumer backlash (as per usual) 3 - Apple will block similar apps and go with the "Good spotting! We didn't realize this OTHER app conflicted with our policies! We'll remove it too!" And in all situations, some people will be up in arms, some people will applaud apple, someone will scream about why jailbreaking is required to have (more) control over their phone, many will say "Well, if you had a blackberry/ palm pre / g-phone, you wouldn't have this problem".... and no one will think of the children.

Re:Apple rejecting apps? Say it ain't so! (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411785)

Another slashdot article crying about Apple doing bad things without bothering to think things through.
Sega game - hardcoded rom - no big deal.
C64 emulator - run arbitrary executable code - big fucking deal.

There is a pretty significant difference between the two. Now...is the C64 emulator likely to cause problems...probably not...but it is far easier and more efficient to just slap a ban on any app that can run arbitrary external executable code and call it a day. So your scenarios are as follows. 1 - Allow the app through and set a precedence for people being allowed to violate the dev agreement while opening up everyone's phone to external code execution exploits and get named a bad guy and probably sued by other developers who had their apps rejected for other agreement violation reasons previously. 2 - Continue to block the new app that violates the terms, protect the users from code execution problems, protect themselves from lawsuits, while realizing that most of the "consumer backlash" is from a bunch of whiney shits, most of whom won't even buy the damned iPhone in the first place. 3 - Block other "similar" apps and get sued for removing previously approved apps that did not violate any terms of service.

Re:Apple rejecting apps? Say it ain't so! (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412123)

"C64 emulator - run arbitrary executable code - big fucking deal."

What's the BFD? It runs it inside a completely isolated sandbox. There's no way you can exploit iPhone by coding in BASIC.

How is that different from JavaScript on webpages?

Re:Apple rejecting apps? Say it ain't so! (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412137)

Continue to block the new app that violates the terms [..] while realizing that most of the "consumer backlash" is from a bunch of whiney shits, most of whom won't even buy the damned iPhone in the first place.

Actually, I suspect that most of the "bunch of whiney shits" certainly *will* hand over their money for an iPhone anyway- regardless of Apple's policies. Which in practice still means that Apple don't have to give a toss about them.

Re:Apple rejecting apps? Say it ain't so! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412327)

Perhaps you could explain precisely what a 6510 emulator could run? This "arbitrary code" claim is pure bullshit, and unless you're severely retarded (and maybe you are, most Apple fanboys are pathetic mental cases), you know it. I mean, we're talking about emulating a 30 year old processor and hardware nearly that old. I suppose it's remotely possible that, if the iPhone platform is sufficiently insecure as to allow an emulator to gain actual control of the underlying operating system, that this could be an issue, but I would think if that were the issue, someone wouldn't be retarded enough to put the effort into an emulator when they could fashion a more mundane program to do their dirty work.\

C64 emulators have been around for something like 20 years now. Have you ever heard of the underlying operating system being undermined because these emulators can run "arbitrary code" (by which we really mean 6510 machine code and Commodore Basic code)? If not, then about the only defense is "Apple don't that". Apple is run by pathetic, emotionally stunted turds, and the only thing more pathetic than the people who run apple are the semi-literate, semi-sentient cretins who post shameless apologetics on Slashdot.

Non entirely unreasonable ... (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411643)

It seems Sega is exempt from that clause, because some of its games on the iPhone are emulators running original ROM code.

From Apples perspective, I don't see this as entirely unreasonable.

They want to manage customer experience by controlling the environment. An app which can host arbitrary code could lead to exploits or other badness.

Code from the original ROMs is pretty well bounded and not going to do anything unexpected or malicious.

Now, that doesn't mean a bunch of people won't howl about this. But, for the average person buying a iPhone, I doubt they'll care.

Cheers

Re:Non entirely unreasonable ... (1)

nhytefall (1415959) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412105)

Now, that doesn't mean a bunch of people won't howl about this. But, for the average person buying a iPhone, I doubt they'll care.

Cheers

Amen... and I really don't think Apple gives two cents about /., either :)

Sega's case is diferent (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411645)

The games may run in an emulator but if it only runs that game and nothing else then it is effectively one application and nothing else. The C64 emulator will allow you to run numerous applications even if they are old and outdated.

Apple's app store policies are weak but I agree with the other commenter and think we've had enough of these sort of stories. Apple isn't going to change their mind because these stories get posted on Slashdot and any regular should be using an Android based phone anyway. :P

Clarification (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411649)

I think what Apple wants is to make sure you can't "add" more games without going to the appstore.

Individual games (eg the Sega ones referred to) are each a seperate app that you get from the App store. You arent getting a single "Sega" emulator which you can then get more roms (legit or otherwise) seperately from the app store.

Presumably the C64 emulator had no such limitation.

(I have an iPhone, its jailbroken and unlocked, and even though I can explain Apple's motivation for their restrictive policy, they can kiss my ass)

Typical Apple (2, Insightful)

spiffydudex (1458363) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411671)

You gotta do it the Apple way or go home. We have seen this time and time again with the app store.

Simple solution... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411677)

Bundle the individual games with the emulator, but don't provide a mechanism to install additional games.

Consistently Inconsistent (1)

mlingojones (919531) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411681)

It seems Sega is exempt from that clause, because some of its games on the iPhone are emulators running original ROM code."

It's not as if this is new behavior for Apple. There's been at least one other case [cnet.com] of an app by a big developer breaking the SDK agreement and getting approved, even though they fully and publicly admitted to it.

Google acknowledged breaking the official rules of Apple's iPhone software development kit when it created the latest version of the Google Mobile application for the iPhone, but denied a more serious charge.

Idiotic Summary (4, Insightful)

MWoody (222806) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411685)

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.

Re:Idiotic Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411743)

mod parent up

Re:Idiotic Summary (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411897)

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.

Re:Idiotic Summary (4, Informative)

eddy (18759) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412061)

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

If they are following their stated policy, explain how "sid player [apple.com]" 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.

Way to go, Apple. (2, Funny)

amaupin (721551) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411721)

Reject the one app that would have guaranteed me purchasing an iPhone.

Re:Way to go, Apple. (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411861)

I know! All of my friends were talking about how they were holding off on buying an iPhone until it got a proper Commodore emulator....

What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411739)

... Microsoft added a line to their Windows SDK agreement that says: you must not use this SDK to develop any application that has the same or similar functionallity as Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player or Microsoft Office. That would surely save a lot of cash for them in the EU.

Bad Memories (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411839)

I think the C64 brings back bad memories from the home computer wars. Apple ultimately survived thanks to the Macintosh and DTP but CBM gave them fits in the low end market. In fact they were a high end company ever since.

What would they do with an Apple ][ emulator? (3, Interesting)

dmmiller2k (414630) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411843)

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 ...

App store process (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411875)

I would submit again and provide other instances where submissions have been allowed.

I have a SID player on the iPhone which was approved. This is emulating C64 hardware.

The people looking at the app store submissions probably have varied opinions.

Re:App store process (2, Insightful)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#28412045)

It's pretty obvious. The people looking at app store submissions likely have only a very basic understanding of the issues involved, and the SDK agreement isn't very precise as to what falls and doesn't fall under this rule. So the results basically depend on the guy's gut feeling when he checks out the app. For example, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them would consider a SID player a simple music player, even though it actually runs C64 machine code, just as they would probably accept a game with downloadable levels which include some form of built-in scripting as OK, as long as that part isn't explicitly pointed out somewhere.

No part of this is surprising. It's a crappy technical rule, and crappy technical rules don't work well when more than one person is supposed to enforce them.

What is "executable code"? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411921)

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.

Re:What is "executable code"? (4, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411987)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...