Filed under: Gaming, Software, Apple, Developer, iPhone, App Store
C64 emulator un-approved again
The first thing I thought when I saw that the C64 emulator we posted about the other day still had the BASIC interpreter hidden in it was, "Well that won't last." And unfortunately for fans of software emulation on the iPhone, I was right: the software got pulled from the App Store but quick. You can't really blame Apple here -- they've made it pretty clear that they don't actually want people running unlicensed, emulated code on the iPhone, so it's not hard to see why, when it was discovered you could still activate the interpreter, they cleared it out of the store.The good news is that the emulator has been updated to delete the interpreter completely, and the owners of the software have resubmitted it yet again to the App Store. But as much as I enjoy seeing emulators on the iPhone (I've made it very clear I'd love to see an official NES arcade app), I can't say I'd blame Apple for just passing on this one outright. They've had to go through this app at least twice now, and especially since app approval is already taking so long, that's pretty much a waste of time.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ChuckB said 5:27PM on 9-08-2009
So, I get that emulators are not allowed if they are programmable. Seems stupid, given that the iPhone is a, what is that called? Oh, yes, a "computer". And a computer with at least early 1990's level hardware.
If the "executable code" is contained within a box, like the environment of an emulator, why does it matter?
For the record, I own another iPhone app that is exactly the same as this one. It is an old programmable device and the emulator runs executable code within that emulation environment.
I don't get the policy reasoning here....
Reply
Kai Cherry said 5:55PM on 9-08-2009
The reasoning is that they will say or do whatever they can to make sure they can get that 30%.
Remember, this is the same outfit that claimed in writing that unlocked/unrestricted iPhones would be a National Security threat. In writing.
-K
BobbyRicky said 10:15PM on 9-08-2009
So, they're basically Nazis then?
Them bastards. Probably those who killed Kenny too...
This makes me so angry, I want to hurt a puppy!
VanillaSpice said 12:30AM on 9-09-2009
"The reasoning is that they will say or do whatever they can to make sure they can get that 30%"
Eh? How does rejecting an app increase Apple's revenue? They only get 30% if the app is available for sale through the App Store.
If Apple only cared about their cut, then they would approve everything. The fact that they are not approving everything proves they are not just interested in the money, they have other concerns.
Darren said 4:46PM on 9-08-2009
Funny how it's always the amateurs who get their apps rejected.
Nothing generates publicity like an app rejection/re-approval. Right after these guys receive a boatload of publicity for an app that, honestly, has a very limited appeal, the app gets removed due to their own stupidity and arrogance, and as a result they will lose a lot of money.
Dummies.
Reply
Todd Sieling said 5:00PM on 9-08-2009
> Funny how it's always the amateurs who get their apps rejected.
Like Google?
> You can't really blame Apple here
Agreed, but it won't stop the flood of blog pathos. Let the games begin anew; I put $5 on Apple being compared to Nazis within 10 posts.
Darren said 5:04PM on 9-08-2009
Google Voice is, of course, a special case that required Apple and AT&T to answer to the FCC.
This rejection, like most, is pure developer stupidity.
ack154 said 4:53PM on 9-08-2009
"Mistakes like leaving the BASIC in the app"
It wasn't a mistake though. They had agreed with Apple to remove it but then decided to leave it in - thinking they could convince Apple later on that it was OK and could then just "remotely enable it."
They had a blurb about that in their blog (the developer, that is) but they later updated it and removed that part. Here's the quote I saved from it:
"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 “go” from Apple."
Reply
phlyingpenguin said 5:27PM on 9-08-2009
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!!!
colouroflight said 5:13PM on 9-08-2009
This is why you can't trust the move toward the "cloud."
I own the device, plain and simple. And I'll put whatever in the hell I like on it.
Reply
VanillaSpice said 12:23AM on 9-09-2009
You own the device, yes, but you do not own the software which all App Store apps depend on to run (the iPhone OS) - you only have a licence to use that software in certain ways.
So, you can put what you want on the device PROVIDING that you do not use Apple's iPhone OS to do so. And by the way, good luck programming anything resembling a stable and capable smartphone OS.
If you are using Apple's iPhone OS then you cannot put whatever you want on the device, because you are using the OS to do so and you have agreed not to use the OS to put things on your device other than what Apple agrees to.
You have freedoms, just not a freedom to break contracts and agreements that you freely agreed to.
Arru said 8:05AM on 9-09-2009
And through the kill switch, Apple can remove what the hell they don't like. That's the balance of power!
cdavenport4 said 5:24PM on 9-08-2009
Can some explain why this is a problem with Apple? It's C64 emulator! It's not like you can hack into the pentagon or apple's servers. I'm not a noob when it comes to computers but maybe for developing in Commodore.
Reply
Mark Fearing said 5:26PM on 9-08-2009
Good question. I'm not clear on that either, except that theoretically, you could stick an app into something else that would access/use it to do something?
Kai Cherry said 5:37PM on 9-08-2009
This whole situation is the definitive example of "a new kind of stupid".
The app runs on an "os" that is emulated with 64K or RAM in a sandbox...in a sandbox.
Personally, this smacks of at least a triple standard as there are several interpreters on the store already that allow for the creation and execution of "arbitrary code" within their sandbox.
But again, if Apple says it, then it is "right"...regardless.
There is more of a chance of someone submitting a legit "gag app" with a remote exploit than something like this being used to "compromise" the already WHOLLY COMPROMISED and UNBELIEVABLY INSECURE CocoaTouch OS, as demonstrated time and time again.
What irritates me the most, the absolute MOST about all of this is that people with a "vested interest" in this (basically, Apple can do no wrong types) will not even engage in honest debate about the subject.
The ONLY reason these restrictions are in place, and the App Store even exists, is for a revenue stream for Apple off the work of *other people's efforts*...and if you don't believe it look at the In-App Purchase model.
Apple charges the same *ridiculous* 30% for In-App purchases...even though they do NOT house the data, do NOT transfer the data, to NOT have to maintain server space for the stuff (it either has to be already in the app and "unlocked, or sent from the APP DEVELOPER'S server) or pretty much anything else they used to justify this fee.
So while you may want to believe these idiotic restrictions are in place to allow you the consumer to get "better apps" (you don't) or a more secure platform (it isn't) it is a lie and *responsible* "press" and "smart" consumers would better serve themselves by basically getting off their knees and being a bit more critical.
The app has a Basic Interpreter in it? SO WHAT?
The browser has its own JavaScript Engine? And?
The app displays pixelated images? This is a problem because...?
This app has a keypad in it? The problem would be...?
This is the same outfit that made a ton of cash off of fart apps, allowed a *baby shaker app* to be sold, but rejected a Missing Children app because the developer had written books about unofficial development, people.
Stop being the "drones" the rest of computing swears we are. Stop shouting down honest debate about the myriad "WTF?-ery" that is the Glorious App Store.
It is absolutely the worst "feature" of the iPhone.
Reply
Darren said 7:33PM on 9-08-2009
I don't know why I'm replying to someone who clearly hears voices in his head, but here goes:
Apple's 30% cut is standard for software publishing, if not generous for small developers. Some publishers take as much as 80% until sales cross some threshold. I bet you didn't know that.
For obvious security reasons, Apple's developer agreement explicitly forbids 3rd-party software from executing arbitrary or downloaded code. It is VERY, VERY easy for a developer to comply with this. That the developer failed to do so is merely an result of his own incompetence. I know you didn't know that.
Few developers would complain about Apple following their developer agreement to the letter.
> It is absolutely the worst "feature" of the iPhone.
This "feature" has allowed the iPhone to be free of security problems, enabled many small developers to go into business for themselves, and has opened the iPhone to a mountain of high quality, innovative 3rd-party software other platforms could only dream of. Have you tried any of the 3rd party software on Android or Pre? They're mostly junk.
It is the BEST feature of the iPhone.
Kai Cherry said 9:22PM on 9-08-2009
Standard apologist tripe.
Your realize that you stated "30% is 'standard' in software publishing...but Apple is not a publisher.
But the majority of your clearly uninformed response (and I noticed that 'voices in his head' bullshit comment too, by the way) pretty much parrots Apple's MARKETING message, that is WELL KNOWN to be complete and utter nonsense:
1. The iphone has, and CONTINUES TO BE EXPLOITED on several levels. Every single exploit or flaw has been via *Apple's software*. Every. Single. One.
2. There are 1000's of ISVs that focus on Apple technology...and have. For years and years before there ever was an iPhone. Ever seen the Macintosh software guide?
If anyone here is hearing voices in their heads it is you pal...the Voice of Apple Marketing drowning out any critical thout.
In summary:
Apple's First Party Apps: Not Secure, have been exploited.
Apple's OS and desktop software for the iPhone platform: Not Secure, used as vector for exploiting/modding.
Apple's code-signing/security scheme: Not secure, single scheme cracks all apps, on internet within minutes.
Apple's top selling apps: Throwaway gag apps, games.
Apple: NOT a software publisher.
Could you *possibly* demonstrate in any clearer way how utterly uninformed, and how firmly fixed that Sunshine Pump is up you behind? :)
-K
Additional note: Few developers *would* in fact be less likely to complain about them following their agreement. The issue is that App Review is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER a technical process and as such, it is plain that they do not.
Perhaps Apple should turn that microscope internally...or better yet, toss it out.
David Hildreth said 7:00PM on 9-08-2009
If I'm not mistaken there are plenty of legit games that are emulated on the iPhone. SEGA has a few titles, I'd assume there are more. It's a silly rule.
Reply
Darren said 7:47PM on 9-08-2009
It has nothing to do with emulation. Apple asked the developer to disable the BASIC programming interpreter. The developer complied and Apple published the app.
But the developer left a backdoor that re-enables BASIC programming, and once Apple found out they un-published the app.
Ankur said 7:36PM on 9-08-2009
Damn, I should have bought the app when it was approved a couple days ago now I'm going to have to wait for it to re-emerge :/.
Reply