Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Classic Games (Games) Emulation (Games) Apple

Apple Pulls C64 Emulator From the App Store 580

Posted by kdawson
from the brief-shining-moment dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Pulls C64 Emulator From the App Store

Comments Filter:
  • And then what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jason daHaus (1419459) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:26PM (#29353641)
    Seriously? What? What can you do from a C64 shell on an iPhone?
    • Re:And then what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Cowar (1608865) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:28PM (#29353669)
      it probably duplicates core functionality in the loosest sense of the term. I.E. turns it into a "computer" that people can then "use" to "get stuff done". Then BAM! duplicate functionality.
      • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:43PM (#29353953) Homepage Journal
        They are still bitter that C64 games were better than Apple ][e games back in the day...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AnalPerfume (1356177)
        Duplicating functionality? I wonder if "copy & paste" could be described as that? Maybe that's why it was missing from the iPhone when it first appeared. Then again, if it could be classed as that, Apple seem to be contradicting their own rules. /sarcasm.

        Seriously, this is just one in a long list of stories which suggest Apple are barmy. Each new example of a Stalin-like appreciation of freedom sees another few previously loyal Apple customers cringe and refuse to defend Apple as they once did. People h
        • Re:And then what? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Skuld-Chan (302449) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @07:28PM (#29359291)

          S60 r5 has a lot of the same functionality as the iPhone these days - and guess what - I can run any app I like on it including C64 emulators. Yeah the n97 is kinda expensive (599$) but 32 gigs, expandable to another 48 gigs, user serviceable battery, and freedom to use the device on ANY network I have a sim card for, and run any app I want is really quite cool.

          Oh and Symbian has always had copy/paste ;).

    • by wiredog (43288) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:30PM (#29353719) Journal

      Try to take over the world.

    • Re:And then what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by babyrat (314371) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:32PM (#29353745)

      I believe at least one of the problems is that with access to the basic interpreter could be used to start illegally obtained games.

      • Re:And then what? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jcr (53032) <jcr@@@mac...com> on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:38PM (#29353891) Journal

        No, they banned it because they prohibit any language interpreters. What anyone wants to do with those interpreters is beside the point.

        -jcr

        • by Hatta (162192) * on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:50PM (#29354925) Journal

          No, they banned it because they are dickwads. Any reason they give is merely cover for this fact.

    • by Mechanik (104328) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:35PM (#29353823) Homepage

      Seriously? What? What can you do from a C64 shell on an iPhone?

      The same thing everyone used to do with the C64 out in front of Radio Shack back in the day...

      10 PRINT "PENIS!!!!!!"
      20 GOTO 10

      • Re:And then what? (Score:5, Informative)

        by oldspewey (1303305) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:44PM (#29353973)
        That was Sears. Radio Shack was where you programmed the TRS-80 in the endless penis loop.
      • by Lemmy Caution (8378) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:45PM (#29353979) Homepage

        Among a certain crowd, that program passes the Turing test.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by WiFiBro (784621)

        At least add

        6 FOR I=1 TO 15
        7 POKE 53281,I
        8 FOR J=1 TO 15
        9 POKE 53280,J
        12 NEXT J
        13 PAUSE 1
        15 NEXT I

        and change 20 to GOTO 6

    • by jpmorgan (517966) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:36PM (#29353855) Homepage
      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.
    • Re:And then what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:37PM (#29353877)

      The point is you arent allowed to have any sort of dynamic, interpreted code at all. No java, no .net runtime, no assembly interpreter, no scripts, no nothing.

      You see, it opens the door for people to write their own C64 basic phones and run them on the iPhone, without - gasp - Steve Jobs approving, or getting paid! I could write my own "lemonade stand" game, and distribute it, OUTSIDE OF APPLES OFFICIAL CHANNELS?

      THE APPALLING HORROR OF AN OPEN PLATFORM!

      BTW, you can do a whole lot from a c64 shell when you're clever.. You're obviously too young to know.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ArieKremen (733795)
        The commands PEEK and POKE come to mind...
      • by greenguy (162630) <estebandido@noSPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:19PM (#29354485) Homepage Journal

        This summarizes why I don't own an iPhone. They're very slick and all, but I've been spoiled by running Linux for years. The concept of needing someone's approval to run software on my hardware is a non-starter for me. I'll decide that for myself, thanks very much.

      • 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

    • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:43PM (#29353961)

      Seriously? What? What can you do from a C64 shell on an iPhone?

      If you'd ever watched Macgyver, you wouldn't ask that question.

    • by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:53PM (#29354111) Homepage Journal

      You could write an app store for the C64, featuring C64 only games, but then Apple wouldn't get the cut.

    • Re:And then what? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:00PM (#29354225)

      Well, if you want to see what a C64 is capable of, come to
      the Vintage Computer Festival this weekend:

      http://www.vintage.org/2009/east/

      There will be several C64s on exhibit, available for hands on
      experimentation.

    • by cirby (2599) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:09PM (#29354345)

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sarusa (104047)

      Okay, treating this whole story more seriously than Apple's stupid deserves:

      The evil they fear is user generated content that bypass the app approval process. Like shaking a baby to death with giant flying dongs while 'Heil Hitler Satan' scrolls in the background. Or worse, writing a clone of some copyrighted game. Or even worse, using emulated SID to play copyrighted music. BASIC would let you do that. This is presumably what they fear.

      Now there's nothing to stop you from writing this game on your C64 with

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by icebraining (1313345)

        Actually, you can only run a specific set os C64 games/apps, supported by the emulator developers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by saboola (655522)
      Well, a little "LOAD "*",8,1" in basic and all of a sudden iPhone OS is being wiped and replaced with GEOS.
    • Re:And then what? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by itsdapead (734413) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @03:17PM (#29355293)

      Write arbitrary code.

      Which is against Apple's T&Cs.

      Because the iPhone isn't intended to be an all-purpose pocket computer - its a phone and music player.

      Apple's fear is that people will install buggy apps that screw up the phone, and then blame Apple. No conspiracy needed. If they were purely interested in lock-out they'd never have approved Spotify.

      If Apple allowed apps that ran arbitrary code they'd have to check not just the C64 emu but every app with a macro or scripting facility to ensure that they were adequately sandboxed. That would be a lot of work.

      If you want a phone where, if you break it, you get to keep both pieces, go buy an Android phone or (if you want to lose the will to live) Windows Mobile.

      Disclaimer, I have an Android phone, and an iPod Touch (iPhone without a phone) and am looking for a sufficiently deep hole in which to cast my old WM phone. So I'm not a complete fanboi.

      Meanwhile, this guy agreed to remove BASIC but either deliberately or negligently left it in. I'd rather not install their software, in case they negligently or deliberately left anything els in, thanks.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Disclaimer, I have an Android phone, and an iPod Touch (iPhone without a phone) and am looking for a sufficiently deep hole in which to cast my old WM phone. So I'm not a complete fanboi.

        I was close to getting an Android phone. But then I realized the T-Mobile service around me stunk, and didn't like that idea.

        Then I considered getting one unlocked (either through Google Developer or after a few months on T-Mobile) but learned that Google locked out the copyrighted apps from their store. Wasn't a major fan of that, though it didn't 100% stop me.

        The final straw was the scrollball. I had one on a Blackberry Pearl that cr@pped out and it drove me nuts. I figured it was just bad luck.

        But th

  • The n900 cometh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kirin Fenrir (1001780) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:30PM (#29353725)
    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/ [nokia.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hansamurai (907719)

      Or the Android platform, it's definitely getting interesting with the Sprint offering coming next month and a whole slew of phones hitting Europe and the US.

    • by whisper_jeff (680366) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:28PM (#29354621)
      Your post reminds me of the hundreds of "the iPod is dead, here is its successor" posts that I read back in the day.

      I'm just sayin'.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Darinbob (1142669)
      Linux is nice and all, but does it run C64 BASIC?
  • by Danathar (267989) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:31PM (#29353733) Journal

    Having the C64 Basic interpreter as a programming environment on the iphone would strategically hurt Apple in horrible way....

    Riiiiight

  • by bzzfzz (1542813) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:32PM (#29353749)
    I would have laughed if you told me, back in the day, that future device makers would go to great lengths to lock out C64 BASIC so that users could use it to build applications that were so powerful that important third parties would be afraid. I know it's Turing-complete, but still.

    I have never been much of a believer in Stallman's dystopian visions but I'm getting closer to believing them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by chriso11 (254041)

      Maybe they are coming out with a Apple ][ emulator, and it represents too much competition...

    • by jpmorgan (517966) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:48PM (#29354037) Homepage
      The computing world never turned into quite the dystopia that some feared, because the vertical integrators were mostly killed. Now, in the past I couldn't really care what Apple did because they were always a niche platform. But some disclosure: I hate the iPhone, I want it to die, or at least lose its dominant position. If the future of mobile computing is dominated by a company like Apple, then it's a bleak future. Say what you will about Microsoft's domination of the desktop, but they were never draconian like this.

      In the past being a Windows dev was compared to serfdom. If that's true, then what's being an iPhone developer like?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dyfet (154716)

      Dystopias usually are meant to illustrate what can go wrong and where it could potentially lead taken to it's logical extreme. However, that is not always the case. For example, unfortunately, western governments seem to have decided that "1984" was not a dystopic warning, but rather a blueprint to implement!

  • Imagine a future.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Danathar (267989) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:33PM (#29353791) Journal

    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...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Jay L (74152) *

      catapulting a once dead platform from the grave back into stardom

      Stereo SIDPlayer:iTunes killer!

  • by IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:34PM (#29353801)
    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!
    • by Ohio Calvinist (895750) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:52PM (#29354103)
      The issue is that if they allow this application, they'll have a harder time justifying denying other applications using interpreted languages. That seems like a non-story to me. Everyone has known from the beginning that that was the case, and that the reason was that if they allowed it, there would be no way of controlling it.

      However what I do think is interesting is that they'd allow any emulator at all. Particularly one whose games all depend upon an interpreted language. I'm primarily surprised because of the possibility that someone might be able to get unauthorized apps to run under it, not to mention any liability (real or assumed) a plantiff might try to claim if the emulator ran their code illegally and that Apple rubber stamped it knowing the possibility. Emulators have always been in that sort of gray-area. Apple is more than just the device manufacturer, all apps through the app-store have them functioning as a distributor.
      • by bennomatic (691188) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:36PM (#29354737) Homepage

        Particularly one whose games all depend upon an interpreted language

        C64 games typically were not written in BASIC, as the performance of BASIC sucked. Only the cheesiest type-it-in-yourself games were implemented this way.

        Most games were written in 6510 assembly, which was a very simple label-abstraction above 6510 machine language. Basically, the "assembling" process just changed the commands, like 'JSR' (jump to subroutine) to their binary equivalents (in this case, 00010000), and made sure that all two-byte numbers were big-endian. So JSR $FFD2, the command to print a byte to the screen became (in decimal) 032 210 255.

        Some assemblers were a little more advanced, with macros and the like so you could label a subroutine and it would substitute the appropriate register address, but I never believed in those. I edited my code directly to the bits, damn it!

  • by etymxris (121288) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:34PM (#29353811)

    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.

  • Just Silliness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pitr (33016) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:38PM (#29353887)

    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.

    • Re:Just Silliness (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:59PM (#29354191)

      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.

      Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your own phone. That poses no risk. They care if you write arbitrary code that can be used to hack phones that aren't jailbroken. Thus, no applications that execute arbitrary code from other sources. It's the rule they made and developers have to stick to, even if in this case it is unlikely to be too serious.

      The reasons for this are twofold:

      First, they don't want people running an interpreter and installing apps on top of it, because one new app that runs on top, which Apple does not have an opportunity to test, could violate Apple's agreement with AT&T or break out of the sandbox and install malware. At that point Apple has to disable a whole swath of programs to stop one noncompliant or malicious program.

      Second, Apple doesn't want any runtimes becoming critical components of the iPhone. They don't want Java or .Net or a DOS emulator with intellectual property out of Apple's control to become a Gatekeeper for any significant number of applications on the IPhone. Apple wants to be the only gatekeeper and it's up to the buyer to decide if that is a good thing, a bad thing, or a mix of both.

      • Re:Just Silliness (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jpmorgan (517966) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:27PM (#29354605) Homepage
        That doesn't make sense. Code that can break out of an emulator sandbox would be exploiting a security vulnerability. You could apply the same argument to say that Apple shouldn't allow email on the iPhone, because that could exploit some vulnerability and install malware. Which is particularly ironic given the iPhone's SMS vulnerability. An emulator is just a program that takes some user input and does something with it... there's nothing special there and any program which 'takes some user input and does something with it' is equally problematic.
        • Re:Just Silliness (Score:4, Informative)

          by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:38PM (#29354763)

          That doesn't make sense. Code that can break out of an emulator sandbox would be exploiting a security vulnerability.

          Yes, it would.

          You could apply the same argument to say that Apple shouldn't allow email on the iPhone, because that could exploit some vulnerability and install malware.

          No, because an e-mail client on the iPhone is not designed to run arbitrary code. For arbitrary code to run using an e-mail client there has to be a vulnerability in the e-mail client which Apple failed to find when the approved the app (not that they look hard) and a second vulnerability in the sandbox which can be exploited using the first vulnerability.

          With applications designed to run arbitrary code they just need a vulnerability in the sandbox and they have the full range of a programming language to use, not just what can fit in the first exploit. In addition, if there is an e-mail client that breaks out of the sandbox, Apple can revoke the key and all the iPhones stop being vulnerable to the malware with just that client being affected. With a run-time that executes other code they have to revoke the run-time's key, disabling every program that relies upon it which, if they allowed such things, could be a significant portion of the applications.

          An emulator is just a program that takes some user input and does something with it... there's nothing special there and any program which 'takes some user input and does something with it' is equally problematic.

          I thought I was clear in my first post why it is problematic. If not, hopefully my clarification above has solidified the explanation. Applications that execute arbitrary code break Apple's reactive security model granularity and are a lot easier to use for creating malware.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by lxs (131946)

      Have you never watched War Games? In the wrong hands those 8-bit machines could destroy the world.

  • by zr-rifle (677585) <zedr@zedrMOSCOW.com minus city> on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:47PM (#29354021) Homepage
    ...they learned how to jailbreak their Commodore 64 too...
  • The Point? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:51PM (#29354091)

    "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....

  • Apple Hates Geeks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by popo (107611) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:00PM (#29354207) Homepage

    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.

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:51PM (#29354955)
      It's ironic that Apple wouldn't exist without Steve Wozniak, one of the geekiest tinkerers of all time.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AP31R0N (723649)

      (This reply is not for popo's benefit.)

      You're right about the control. That's how they shape the "Apple Experience". i despise Apple and it's products, and most of their fans. But i can tell you this from my conversations with Mac Heads on /. and Fark: Apple is all about the experience of a system that is hard to mess up. They trade freedom for security. Apple's control is about giving you a standard issue item. "You'll have it our way and like it". Not out of meanness or just to make more money, but

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by foqn1bo (519064)
      Which is exactly why Apple gives away all their development tools for free, and why the built their current flagship software product on top of BSD, drawing significant interest and new users from the Linux crowd.

      Apple doesn't hate geeks, it hates the way many geeks think that because they're so smart, they're automatically good at everything. The Unix that is OS X and the iPhone platform provide plenty of room for tinkering -- perhaps less so on the iPhone -- but it's not like everything Mac is a lif
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:56PM (#29355025)

      No seriously. Apple hates geeks. This isn't flamebait, btw.

      No, not flamebait, just idiocy. Apple is largely made of geeks. I find it hard to find a more apt description of a former NextStep employee or a former BSD developer or the guy who wrote and maintains CUPS.

      But ultimately Apple's corporate strategy can be summed up in one word: Control.

      Actually, Apple's strategy with regard to both the iPod and iPhone has been about limited, but polished functionality. Blackberry has been all about providing the most and most varied functionality. Apple has been about providing a limited subset of that functionality, but polished so it is really, really easy. In order to do that, and maintain that for submissions from others, they maintain significant control; but that is not the core philosophy.

      I would note that this strategy is not one designed to cater to geeks. That is certainly not their target market and if you are a hardcore geek you might be happier using a product that does cater to your market segment. There are lots of other options. Go for it.

      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.

      I'd actually say Apple does think differently. Their business model has been different from what others have tried and it has worked for them quite well. It just hasn't targeted you. Get over it.

      For their Mac computers, on the other hand, Apple has been targeting geeks pretty heavily and it has worked. Look around at Blackhat or Defcon or any technology related conference and the truth is evident. OS X developers (some of whom are also iPhone developers) are geeks and they target geeks in OS X. That's why they have a bash shell. That's why they pulled in UI features from X11 to make the UNIX geeks looking to switch happy. Normal users don't care about or use multiple desktops and never drop to a shell. That's just for geeks. I know a few people at Apple. One used to work for Cray doing OS development. He's about as big of a geek as you can imagine.

      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...

      It's funny because you did not provide even one example of how the PC provides more options than your Mac... something rather critical to your premise, no?

  • Nonstory (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:02PM (#29354257) Homepage

    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.

  • by argent (18001) <peter@slashdot.2 ... com minus physic> on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:13PM (#29354405) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by BitZtream (692029) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @04:08PM (#29356119)

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1360395&cid=29345727 [slashdot.org]

    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.

This place just isn't big enough for all of us. We've got to find a way off this planet.

Working...