C64 emulator un-approved again

B,

Darren is a typical Apple Apologist. The reality that is 'argument' against my assertions is completely flawed is not relevant. The fact that there are already several programmable emulated computing devices on the store...also irrelevant.

The additional fact that the only software, in this so-called "stability and security" scheme that seem to have ever been exploited on the platform is software that Apple has written? TOTALLY irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant to this is is that "Apple said it, I believe it, and that settles it"...regardless of actual reality :)

LOL Apple is a software publisher, lol. I assure you Darren has no IDEA what he is talking about, has NEVER read or signed an SLA with Apple, and is, as the kids say, a 'fanboy' and should be dealt with as such. I bet he'll reply and point out my Typonese instead of addressing the actual issue :)

-K

Yeah, we get it Kai, everyone who disagrees with you is an "Apple apologist" and therefore has a "vested interest" and therefore we can disregard them and their opinions and whatever statements they bring to the table. And listen to you instead, presumably.

Ah, but hold on, you're an App Store developer, so your vested interest is clear and obvious, therefore we can disregard you and your opinions and whatever statements you bring to the table. Yes?

You call everyone else an Apple apologist. Well I call you a developer apologist.

No matter how valid or genuine a reason Apple has had for rejecting apps, you've been there, decrying the act and labelling it stupid or wrong. Your ridiculous characterisation of Apple as a software publisher clearly demonstrated your prejudices and blindspots. Your refusal to debate anyone without leading with "well, you're an apologist and therefore wrong anyway but hey let me begin with ..." shows a lack of respect (and thought) for what others have said.

But it is your defence of a developer who tried to trick Apple and include some prohibited code (prohibited by mutually-signed contract, no less!) that proves you are an apologist. The actions of this developer are simply indefensible. Only an apologist would leap to their defence.

You, as a software developer, have rights over your applications. Apple, as developer of the iPhone OS, has rights over that software, including the right (yes, it is actually their right that they are exercising) to say, "you cannot use our software (the iPhone OS) to load apps and code that we haven't approved."

Why are you unable to understand that? Why do you, as a developer, want to take away the rights of other developers (Apple in this case) yet presumably maintain your own rights over your own programming creations? It is just hypocrisy, plain and simple hypocrisy.

If you didn't buy it before, do you really need it?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

And through the kill switch, Apple can remove what the hell they don't like. That's the balance of power!