The problem is that its unchecked by the OS. In THEORY, you could write malicious or otherwise naughty code in the BASIC interpreter that could damage the OS or steal data from the phone.
Isn't this just the Basic ROM running inside a C64 emulator? How could that be used to hack thee iPhone when it's behind both the C64 virtualised hardware and the emulator itself?
I think there's some other reason behind this - like not wanting normal users to be able to program anything on the iPhone?
The trick is this. As it stands, each programmer is responsible for the app they submit to the AppStore. If it turns out to be malicious (for instance, it grabs all your contacts and uploads them to a remote server... or maybe it initiates long-distance calls when you're not looking), and Apple moves to shut it down... they NEED to address the responsible party... not a developer that says, "Hey, I didn't know they'd be able to do this.". Suddenly, there is a sub-ecosystem of security problems, and if Apple shuts down the entire ecosystem upon discovering a wide systemic problem with it, ALL of those users/sub-games become affected (not just the original developer).
Imagine if the C64 emulator had an easy way for people to add basic code. Through Basic, you access the machine language system. Through that, you access what the C64 app has exposed of the Apple SDK. You find an exploit, and suddenly you can start acting maliciously, and Apple has no choice but to assume the entire environment is malware... or micromanage the problems.
It's awful, and doesn't represent the "safety" Apple would like to ascribe to its iPhone OS environment. Hey, and I wouldn't mind circumventing Apple and installing Strip Poker! I can see the headline now... C64 emulator allows the first PORN sold through the AppStore. The issue of "control" isn't as fascist as people would like to think. Apple created the most popular mobile AppStore on the planet, and people still busy themselves pontificating on why Apple got it "wrong". Meanwhile, ANYONE else could go ahead and "one-up" Apple. Microsoft? Palm? RIM? Nokia? Android? Anyone? --Cause, it sounds like Apple solved a tricky problem that's not as simple as folks would think.
I think Google Android's come the closest to "openness", yet they've had to ban apps from the marketplace too. Y'know, it never really ends. I knew the moment I heard people could drop into the interpreter, Apple would pull it. In the end, I'm not sure I see the value in not appreciating Apple's priorities.
hmm so an app that basically works like the online TRS-80 emulator and somehow it can magically access the systems machine language? somehow i doubt that, a BASIC emulator is as about as dangerous as a NES emulator, the virtual machine can't affect the main machine without a lot of magic that doesn't happen (no one has ever hacked a computer using an NES emulator, have they? no, and it works the SAME WAY AS THIS)
this is a bunch of apple WHARRGARBL and you fan boys need to stop blindly defending them.
Apple wants control of every piece of code that runs on the machine, either to "manage" the user experience or to garner as much revenue as it can, or both. Good or bad, that's been their mantra from the start. Nobody should be surprised or outraged by this.
We've accepted this because we want "the shiny", and most of the time we get patted on the head by Apple and everything is great. It's only when things like this happen that we are suddenly forced to realize how shitty we have it and become electronic gadget Lech Wałęsas.
That's totalitarianism, by the way, not socialism. And it's not totalitarianism if you are able to get off the bus (by not buying it)
For those looking for a device strictly for reading, the new Kobo is a nice little option. It's small enough to slip into a pocket, can do more with a PDF than the competition, and at $129, it's $10 cheaper than both the Nook and Kindle WiFi.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
hmmmm, what is so bad about having a BASIC interpreter?
My philosophy is that the more interpreters and programming languages you can use on a system, the merrier.
The problem is that its unchecked by the OS. In THEORY, you could write malicious or otherwise naughty code in the BASIC interpreter that could damage the OS or steal data from the phone.
I'm sure many shady programmers also love your philosophy :)
More interpreters/languages = more potential for holes~
Isn't this just the Basic ROM running inside a C64 emulator? How could that be used to hack thee iPhone when it's behind both the C64 virtualised hardware and the emulator itself?
I think there's some other reason behind this - like not wanting normal users to be able to program anything on the iPhone?
The trick is this. As it stands, each programmer is responsible for the app they submit to the AppStore. If it turns out to be malicious (for instance, it grabs all your contacts and uploads them to a remote server... or maybe it initiates long-distance calls when you're not looking), and Apple moves to shut it down... they NEED to address the responsible party... not a developer that says, "Hey, I didn't know they'd be able to do this.". Suddenly, there is a sub-ecosystem of security problems, and if Apple shuts down the entire ecosystem upon discovering a wide systemic problem with it, ALL of those users/sub-games become affected (not just the original developer).
Imagine if the C64 emulator had an easy way for people to add basic code. Through Basic, you access the machine language system. Through that, you access what the C64 app has exposed of the Apple SDK. You find an exploit, and suddenly you can start acting maliciously, and Apple has no choice but to assume the entire environment is malware... or micromanage the problems.
It's awful, and doesn't represent the "safety" Apple would like to ascribe to its iPhone OS environment. Hey, and I wouldn't mind circumventing Apple and installing Strip Poker! I can see the headline now... C64 emulator allows the first PORN sold through the AppStore. The issue of "control" isn't as fascist as people would like to think. Apple created the most popular mobile AppStore on the planet, and people still busy themselves pontificating on why Apple got it "wrong". Meanwhile, ANYONE else could go ahead and "one-up" Apple. Microsoft? Palm? RIM? Nokia? Android? Anyone? --Cause, it sounds like Apple solved a tricky problem that's not as simple as folks would think.
I think Google Android's come the closest to "openness", yet they've had to ban apps from the marketplace too. Y'know, it never really ends. I knew the moment I heard people could drop into the interpreter, Apple would pull it. In the end, I'm not sure I see the value in not appreciating Apple's priorities.
You're assuming that apple in no way sandboxes the apps. Guess again.
hmm so an app that basically works like the online TRS-80 emulator and somehow it can magically access the systems machine language? somehow i doubt that, a BASIC emulator is as about as dangerous as a NES emulator, the virtual machine can't affect the main machine without a lot of magic that doesn't happen (no one has ever hacked a computer using an NES emulator, have they? no, and it works the SAME WAY AS THIS)
this is a bunch of apple WHARRGARBL and you fan boys need to stop blindly defending them.
@G.
Apple wants control of every piece of code that runs on the machine, either to "manage" the user experience or to garner as much revenue as it can, or both. Good or bad, that's been their mantra from the start. Nobody should be surprised or outraged by this.
We've accepted this because we want "the shiny", and most of the time we get patted on the head by Apple and everything is great. It's only when things like this happen that we are suddenly forced to realize how shitty we have it and become electronic gadget Lech Wałęsas.
That's totalitarianism, by the way, not socialism. And it's not totalitarianism if you are able to get off the bus (by not buying it)