"Manomio's Commodore 64 emulator has finally been approved by Apple. We first reported on the project back in June, after Manomio had received their first rejection from Apple. The rejection was particularly disappointing considering the efforts that Manomio had made in making sure their emulator fully licensed and legal." Update by Kroc: The app has been pulled, after Apple caught wind of the much publicised trick to enable BASIC in the emulator. Tsk, tsk; if you're going to put in easter eggs, the point is to keep them a secret, umm'kay.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2006-06-03
Member since:2006-05-10
Member since:2006-07-14
Exactly. Morality and legality are two separate things. I'm usually okay because, to a large extent they do coincide.
Although,this isn't really a morality issue, just a judgment call. It's like saying only people wearing blue shirts can drive on Wednesdays. I'm not wiling to sacrifice my life over that rule, but I might steal the blue shirts of every elected official that voted for the law.
Member since:2005-07-13
These two points need to be clearly separated. As far as these rules are concerned, Apple is its own master. You might not be able to blame Apple for enforcing the rules, but Apple is absolutely to blame for the rules being stupid in the first place.
On a separate note, I'm curious to know how Manomio avoided the problem of not being able to use interpreted code.
I'm not an iPhone developer (or user), but I understand the original problem was with the following clause in the iPhone developer agreement:
"3.3.2 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)."
Why would a BASIC interpreter violate this clause, whereas something described as an emulator does not? Perhaps it's not actually an emulator at all?
Member since:2007-10-08
It sounds like one requirement, but there's two distinct clauses to section 3.3.2:
IANAL, but I read this as preventing apps from pulling in code that executes natively on the iPhone. If it's not part of the code that Apple approved in the app store, it can't be loaded & run on top of the iPhone OS.
Here, they're talking about interpreted code, which is what an emulator falls under. There are a couple emulators in the App Store, but they only run the code they're shipped with, code which Apple has given at least a cursory run-through and approved.
Member since:
2007-05-12
Rules are rules, whether you think they are stupid or not. If you break them, you take the consequences. I may think that "don't DUI" is a stupid rule, but if I break it I'd sure as hell not be able to get away with just a "it's totally bogus, man".