“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.
There are a number of C64 emulators for Android and they have been available on Android’s Market for a good number of months already.
This is just another example (from an already long list) of why Apples “smart”phone is less versatile / more locked down than other leading smart phones (which is even more pronounced by the fact that Apple keep pushing the misconception that their iPhone is a netbook equivalent)
If any other company acted this way they would be destroyed in the press and on the internet, but because its Apple, its OK. I mean come on, they pulled the app because you could enable COMMODORE BASIC!!! WTF? Apple is now worse than Microsoft ever was, they just have less market share.
Being upset about apps getting pulled or not accepted for unspecified reasons or reasons that are made up on the spot is understandable. The restriction in question, however, has been clearly stated in the iTunes app store terms of use since day one. You cannot complain about being rejected or pulled because of it. The developer knew about it (or should have known) and if it was an issue for them they could have not developed for the iPhone. Apple did their best to help them around that restriction and in gratitude the developer tried to be a smart ass.
Sure, Apple are teh evilnesses!
Apple pulling an app just because it contains a 30 year old version of 6502 BASIC just shows how ridiculous the App Store rules are, and that is the reason that I refuse to do business with them anymore.
“No Colored folk allowed” – There, I’ve clearly and plainly stated it, right?
In other words:
“you’ve rigidly applied the law with no regard for its intent. Well done! You’ll go far in this organization.”
The rules are the rules. Apple can state the rules, developers can like them or lump them. How is it Apple’s fault if they tell a developer why their app breaks the rules and they alter the app to not break them, except they leave in a easter egg that enables the very functionality they were told NOT to include?
But they are stupid rules. Stupid rules were meant to be broken. Sometimes its the only way to point out how stupid they were to begin with.
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”.
Good thing no one ever broke rules like “No negroes on the bus” or anything eh? Because those were the rules! Obey!
Haha, I posted my previous comment before I read your one.
I’m sure dr. King would feel so very proud that oppression of African-Americans is nowadays considered equal to getting an app banned from Apple’s App Store.</sarcasm>
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.
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?
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.
And I’m the customer. Apple can play by my rules, or not get my damned money. I have an iPhone, I admit; I’m not proud of the damned thing, and I’m seriously considering getting a different smart phone. One of the things I hate most about the iPhone is the rule at issue: I really wish I could write scripts for the phone, like Perl or Python scripts, in order to automate my use of the phone, or add new functionality. The fact that I can’t add functionality to the phone, outside of what I find in the App Store, is a major weakness of the platform, one that I frequently bump into. I most certainly can complain about this arbitrary rule, and I can also punish Apple, by depriving them of my business!