Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,741
153
I agree, it's probably the slickest emulator I've seen. However, is there an licensing issue? I haven't read the article yet but if there is Apple won't touch it.
 

LostLogik

macrumors 6502a
Jul 9, 2008
701
4
I agree, it's probably the slickest emulator I've seen. However, is there an licensing issue? I haven't read the article yet but if there is Apple won't touch it.

No, licensing is not the issue. The dev has spent a lot of time and resource on getting the right licenses, hence is feelings towards Apple after they rejected it.
 

shigzeo

macrumors 6502a
Dec 14, 2005
711
77
Japan
This issue is more of an outrage than many other I have come across. There is no reason the emulator should be rejected with all the filthy shaihk apps and emulators running around in sheeps clothing. Apple need to overhaul their approval process fast.

Too much pron, child abuse and general human rights violations in the face of great apps like the com 64 emulator. it is enough to cause me eyeballs to pop out a bit.
 

admanimal

macrumors 68040
Apr 22, 2005
3,531
2
Whether it's right or not, emulators (especially ones that can run C64 BASIC like this one) are pretty clear violations of the SDK Agreement.
 

Whorehay

macrumors 6502a
Feb 17, 2008
631
1
Whether it's right or not, emulators (especially ones that can run C64 BASIC like this one) are pretty clear violations of the SDK Agreement.

Then be consistent throughout. Don't be an NBA Ref in the NBA Playoffs, Apple.
 

DotComCTO

macrumors 6502
Aug 17, 2006
311
41
I agree, it's probably the slickest emulator I've seen. However, is there an licensing issue? I haven't read the article yet but if there is Apple won't touch it.

Nope. The C64 emulator dev team obtained the legal rights for the project, and also obtained the rights for the ROM packs they published as well.

Apple are just being arbitrary with which emulators they approve (Sega) vs the ones they reject (C64).

Really stinks.

:mad:

--DotComCTO
 

adbe

macrumors 6502a
Jul 11, 2008
669
334
Nope. The C64 emulator dev team obtained the legal rights for the project, and also obtained the rights for the ROM packs they published as well.

Apple are just being arbitrary with which emulators they approve (Sega) vs the ones they reject (C64).

I don't think so. The Sega stuff may be an emulation but it doesn't run arbitrary 3rd party code, which I think is the distinction.

The C64 emulator is a full emulator that can be used to run apps not obtained through the app store. That's why Apple are rejecting it. The problem is, whilst a c64 emulator is clearly not comparable to a Java VM, from Apples POV it's probably hard to create a clear descriptive distinction, so they just go with the blanket approach.

That said, I'd be all over this if Apple weren't being so pissy about using the SDK to run VMs.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.