Commodore64 iPhone app finished, denied by Apple
by Griffin McElroy 
{ Jun 20th 2009 at 9:30PM }
The legally licensed project (which has been in development for over a year) was denied due to a clause in the iPhone SDK agreement which states, "an Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means." As the program would allow users to "boot" C64 disks, it violates this clause -- then again, as mobile gaming news site Touch Arcade points out, a few iPhone apps do the same thing, such as Frotz, an app which loads and runs interactive novels.
Will the Commodore rise again? Or will the man continue to keep it down? Only time will tell.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
KeenCommander @ Jun 20th 2009 9:43PM
Will Apple's rules become less idiotic? No. Will consumers become smarter and stop buying their products? Unfortunately, also no.
*sigh* Shame, since this would probably have been cool.
Jansperus @ Jun 20th 2009 11:08PM
I for one am selling my iPhone since I can't play C64 games like the Last Ninja and the toothbrushing game on it. Anybody who doesn't is an idiot. Stupid Apple customers buying products they actually enjoy.
aaron @ Jun 20th 2009 11:09PM
they will just start working on their pre port now and have it on a phone that doesnt have all those lame rules..... just hope palm makes it long enough for them to force apple to change their tune.
Darkhand @ Jun 21st 2009 6:43AM
As soon as someone (Pre, Android, whatev) makes a port and it gets a lot of momentum apple will accept it I'm sure.
If it bombs on the other platforms then Apple will forget about it.
I'm sure their just playing it legally cautious.
Premature ejaculation man @ Jun 20th 2009 10:00PM
And in that year of development, they never looked at the requirements?
Chaos744 @ Jun 20th 2009 10:04PM
That is the most hilarious name and picture. You are my hero.
Jack_Jackington @ Jun 20th 2009 10:18PM
Ah yes Chaos. He is somebody we all can look up to
*looks up at Premature ejaculation man*
MY EYE!!
BigD145 @ Jun 20th 2009 10:53PM
IT BURNS
weirdestchild @ Jun 20th 2009 10:57PM
THE GOGGLES, THEY DO NOTHING!
WINterfang @ Jun 21st 2009 1:01PM
Awww it's all gooey.-Butters.
Clay @ Jun 20th 2009 10:10PM
"as mobile gaming news site Touch Arcade points out, a few iPhone apps do the same thing, such as Frotz, an app which loads and runs interactive novels"
Not quite... last I checked a novel is not "executable code"
It's actually not a bad rule necessarily, since an app running unknown code poses some security issues Apple would have to address... Still sucks though, they're trying too hard to protect their consumers, instead of letting them do what they want with their devices and face the consequences if they do something stupid. But that's always been the Apple way.
PeterF @ Jun 20th 2009 10:13PM
Running non-iPhone code does not pose a security risk. ROMs will be unable to interact with any part of the iPhone OS or user data.
Vidikron @ Jun 20th 2009 10:19PM
You better check again then. I think you missed the "interactive" in front of "novel".
copa @ Jun 20th 2009 10:45PM
Actually, Clay is correct. Frotz can interpret Z-code files, but these files can only describe interactive fiction. You can not use Z-code as a general purpose code execution device.
This Commodore 64 application is a full fledged emulator, and does allow you to load and execute arbitrary code. I don't know if Apple is being overzealous here, but this application is a completely different animal from Frotz.
lovemetal07 @ Jun 20th 2009 11:52PM
Frotz is a z-machine emulator that plays text based adventure games like Leather Goddesses of Phobos, you would know that if you knew what Frotz is or knew how to google something.
kr3mliyn @ Jun 21st 2009 10:49AM
Both Sonic 1.app and Golden Axe.app are emulators. Apple's policies are inconsistent.
Clay @ Jun 20th 2009 10:34PM
@Peter - I've not tried coding anything for iPhone, so I am unfamiliar with the details. However, certainly an app can make system calls. In the case of a C64 emulator, I'm sure the app itself would be coded such that the ROMs would indeed not have this access, but as a general rule Apple seems to want to review any code that will be run on their device (through legit means). I'm not necessarily in favor of this stance, but it certainly guarantees people aren't going to download something from the app store that has malicious intent! Again, please correct me if I'm completely off base! I don't have experience coding for this platform so I don't know the details.
@Vid What is this interactive novel you speak of?! Nonsense! This truly is the age of dragons...
Clay @ Jun 20th 2009 10:37PM
@Peter again. I think I missed the "non-iPhone code" in your comment. You are right if Apple examined this case specifically I believe they would find they have nothing to worry about.
copa @ Jun 20th 2009 10:56PM
Even if the security issue is not a problem, Apple is still not going to allow emulators onto the system.
RIght now, if you want to develop an app for the iPhone, you have to go through Apple's submission and approval process, and you are subject to their oversight. Also, Apple gets a cut of your sales.
But if someone puts an emulator on the system, you no longer have to go through the App Store to deploy and distribute an application on their platform. You can just code to the emulator, and sell the application off of your own website. No content restrictions, no approval from Apple, and you keep 100% of the revenue.
Max Headroom @ Jun 20th 2009 11:50PM
copa got the right answer. This isn't a security issue, it is a money issue.
charliex @ Jun 20th 2009 10:34PM
Doesn't seem any different to emulating say a Megadrive/Genesis, except one was orginally a mask ROM and the other a boot disk, neither are natively executable code.
They'd both be gibberish to the ARM processor/iPhone.
Manly Mcbeefington (Mr. ESC) @ Jun 20th 2009 10:35PM
Well that sucks.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jun 20th 2009 10:38PM
Disallowing emulators is one of the most iron-clad rules of the Apple Store. If this weren't the case, you can be sure Adobe would have shipped Flash for the iPhone already.
Vidikron @ Jun 20th 2009 10:44PM
Seems they could make an allowance for what the article says is a legally licensed project. And I'm not sure on the technical differences between an emulator and an interpreter, but Frotz seems pretty damned close to an emulator since it will play Infocom games like Zork.
charliex @ Jun 20th 2009 11:15PM
Except there are two emulators on the app store already.
However flash isn't an emulator, its an interpreter which is entirely different and is specifically outlined in the license.
"An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise, No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
None of the above stops emulators, unless they were say use to use a plugin api system that could run new code, like some of the emulators do, all of the code in an approved emulator, and no doubt this one, would use apple's published APIs.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jun 21st 2009 1:42AM
It's not a question of being legally licensed.
It all boils down to this:
If you can put an emulator/interpreter on the system, then you can get the app approved and then change the operation later. YOu could even open your own app store, selling apps that plug into your emulator/interpreter.
Apple wants to keep their 30% cut, end of story.
Seishino @ Jun 22nd 2009 9:24AM
I feel sad that the developers spent a full year coding something amazing for the tiny platform, only to be denied. But "no emulators" really is one of the first rules you learn about iPhone development. They should have gotten concept approval beforehand in writing, and stayed in close contact with Apple throughout the process.
BigD145 @ Jun 20th 2009 10:55PM
Or Apple could work with some app creators for a cut of the profit, but then they'd stop being Apple.
Ellianth @ Jun 20th 2009 11:00PM
they already get a cut of the profit even though they don't do any of the development. Why on earth would the help?
BigD145 @ Jun 21st 2009 12:15AM
I'm talking above and beyond the basic agreement.
Diskoboy7 @ Jun 20th 2009 10:55PM
Cydia is the answer!
There are a few emulators on Cydia (meaning you have to jailbreak your Iphone/Ipod Touch.) already.
Even better - they're free!
Luke @ Jun 21st 2009 4:28PM
yeah, this is one of the main reasons jailbreaking exists
Steve @ Jun 20th 2009 10:59PM
During that year of development, they thought they would be able to sell an emulator on the App Store without ever double checking? That is just ridiculous. I'm sure it sucks for the dev team, but someone should have stopped and pointed out the fact that the restrictions looked like they might be a problem.
Jansperus @ Jun 20th 2009 11:10PM
Amen to that! I know the Apple haters are going to go: "Oh my gosh, Apple is so evil for doing this!" but it's not Apple's fault the developers didn't read the rules. What if I decided to make a pornographic video game for the Wii. Would Nintendo be wrong not to allow it on their system even though they clearly state that such games are not allowed on their system?
Chad Vanderbilt (Moptimus in Disguise) @ Jun 21st 2009 8:45AM
"What if I decided to make a pornographic video game for the Wii. Would Nintendo be wrong not to allow it on their system even though they clearly state that such games are not allowed on their system?"
http://nintendo.joystiq.com/2009/04/29/usk-lists-sexy-poker-for-wiiware/
ಠ_ಠ
FantomRedux @ Jun 21st 2009 10:05AM
If you had any sense, you'd have googled it and then you'd know that Gameloft have had that game out on mobile phones for years in one form or another. They're just as tame as the "porno" apps on the iPhone, nary a nipple in sight.
cineva @ Jun 21st 2009 2:15PM
@Steve Did you read the original story on pocketgamer or toucharcade? They talked with Apple and Apple said they didn't see a problem with it, so either Apple hires idiots, or they're just being annoying.
@Janspersus There already are emulators on the app store so either they're using a double standard or, again, they're trying to be annoying.
Jansperus @ Jun 21st 2009 4:22PM
If the main people at Apple approved it, then it'll be approved eventually. With a company as massive as Apple, miscommunication happens.
I know of the SEGA games, but are there any full-blown emulators that allow you to play unlicensed games for the iPhone? I know the C64 code is licensed, but what about the games themselves?
evilgrug @ Jun 20th 2009 11:15PM
If you bothered to read the Touch Arcade article, you'd know they DID talk to Apple Europe.
Wewtaco @ Jun 21st 2009 12:57AM
Wow, Apple. Really?
Apollo @ Jun 21st 2009 1:16AM
No Commodore? DENIED!
Adv2k1 @ Jun 21st 2009 1:40AM
Don't get me wrong,
I am a fan of retro gaming however anything BEFORE NES (when I grew up) i just find TOO primitive and boring to play.
spathiwa @ Jun 21st 2009 2:30AM
As the author of Frotz for iPhone, I have to agree that there is no practical distinction between Frotz and the C64 emulator (or any emulator). They all run Turing-complete virtual machines which you could run arbitrary code in. I don't believe there's a practical distinction between interpreter and emulator, other than intent.
I believe, as others have mentioned, that Apple is mainly concerned with 1) protecting the iTunes App Store revenue stream, and 2) preventing malicious content/security issues, in that order.
It indeed seems arbitrary that they allowed Frotz and other emulators (likely including ones by Namco and Atari running as part of their 'Remix' releases).
What *should* matter to Apple is not whether iPhone apps contain interpreters or not, but whether such interpreters run in a sufficiently limited sandbox. They should rewrite the SDK agreement to require that any interpreters do not allow any file or network I/O except as hardcoded in the app and not under dynamic control of the interpreter, and provide no direct access to arbitrary iPhone GUI or graphics APIs, so it is not possible to make iPhone 'apps' in the interpreter/emulator which have any sort of functionality that could be passed off to the user as native. Frotz definitely meets these constraints, and I believe the C64 emulator probably does too, depending on how the floppy disk emulation is implemented. (Actually, thanks to the sandboxing introduced in iPhone OS 2.1 the file I/O security constraint is automatically taken care of.)
I really hope Apple sees the light on this, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm consider myself really lucky Frotz got through.
kb8mvp81 @ Jun 21st 2009 3:50AM
That sucks
Phundi @ Jun 21st 2009 7:48AM
A long long time ago. The Apple II got trounced by the Commodore 64. They swore one day they would have their revenge. That day has come.
John Thomas @ Jun 21st 2009 9:57AM
Wow, that totally ticks me off. Apple lets the stupidest, most useless apps go through (ie.. Shake the Baby, IFart, Dog Whistle etc..etc..) yet they deny USEFUL and cool apps like this? APPLE SUCKS! I hope the app ends up in the DEV Store for those of use who have jail broken our phones! Stupid Apple!
Riff
www.anon-tools.tk
Bones3D @ Jun 21st 2009 10:03AM
Near as I can tell, the broadest definition of this policy could literally be applied to any app that "parses" content of any kind. Parsing only works if the content being processed contains markers that app can use to identify each chunk of data. These markers in themselves could be interpreted as executable code, as they alter the function of the app that reads them.
The only difference here is the degree of complexity between loading and accessing the data to displaying it in a usable manner to the end user.
Admittedly, that's probably splitting hairs to almost unreasonable lengths, but it does show that vaguely written policies can be harmful.
Another fun example... writing and testing programs on the iPhone itself. Traditionally speaking, you can't do it. However, if you look closely enough throughout the app store, there are apps out there that do let you "write" code and then "execute" it within the app. The loophole... make the "language" visible using icons or flow charts, rather than text.
"RoboLogic" and "Jasuto" are just a couple examples of where this is done. If handled quietly enough, one could easily sneak in the equivalent of HyperCard under the guise of a just another "mind mapping" app.
scherer.chris @ Jun 21st 2009 11:05AM
They should release it through Cydia... F**k Apple and their store.
Happy_iPhone_Developer @ Jun 21st 2009 11:32AM
As an iPhone App developer, I had my fair share of denied apps/features. For example, section 3.3.1 of the sdk agreement says you can not have a splash screen, yet most of the apps have one. So they're not always consistent either. They'll deny one app and let another one in with the same problem. I don't always agree with Apple, but this time around they're correct.
There were thousands of commodore apps, which would be impossible to test. Some apps might cause the phone to crash, while some of them might work perfect. This might be ok on a Microsoft platform, but on Apple hardware, software should just work. People would get angry when their favorite Commodore 64 game doesn't work and blame Apple for it.
Also, people could start developing apps for the Commodore emulator. This way they could get any sort of App in the store without Apple reviewing it.
There's a way to get this in the App store. If the people that wrote the commodore emulator start releasing games one by one, they'll get accepted. They could even make an App that runs 100 tested games. Apple would allow it without issues... assuming they really do have copyrights to publish those games.
Chad Vanderbilt (Moptimus in Disguise) @ Jun 21st 2009 11:44AM
I like how people seem surprised that a company wont allow 3rd part emulation on their platform.