Is there an android version of the emulator?

[paulscottrobson]

Well, you learn something every day. Didn't think they'd ported SDL to Android (if they haven't, it's going to be very limited). It is a *bit* pointless though.

I always thought Apple had a flat refusal on emulators,  so you couldn't run them without jailbreaking, trying to protect the Apple Store income.

[BruceMcF]

11 minutes ago, paulscottrobson said:

Well, you learn something every day. Didn't think they'd ported SDL to Android (if they haven't, it's going to be very limited). It is a *bit* pointless though.



I always thought Apple had a flat refusal on emulators,  so you couldn't run them without jailbreaking, trying to protect the Apple Store income.

It seems more like they have a ban on emulators that rely ~ directly or indirectly ~ on unlicensed ROMs. There are plenty of "retro" apps on iOS that are running licensed content with an emulator making the app work.

[Scott Robison]

11 hours ago, Perifractic said:

We can only be so clear in the FAQ before we start sounding like we are over explaining things. I had assumed that the fact that the android and iOS versions are linked directly from the official downloads button on this very same website would be enough indication that we endorse those and actually worked with the developers.



What is frowned upon is creating physical machines running our licensed code.



 

Understood on the final part, but "bare metal pi" is just as much an emulation platform as Windows, Linux, etc, yet it was frowned upon. BMC64, for example, it just a port / fork of vice to run on a raspberry pi but without needing a stand alone operating system. One could do the same thing for a PC compatible, and run an emulator without a general purpose OS. There still wouldn't be physical hardware, and it would still have all the same limitations as an emulator, it just wouldn't require Windows or Linux.

As for having links to Android & iOS, I hadn't noticed those previously, probably because you can't (for various degrees of "can't") download them directly, you have to go through their stores. I had noticed the Arch Linux port previously, but in our discussion at the time I was told (paraphrased) "if it doesn't come from the official team it shouldn't be talked about".

Now that I see there are some okay to discuss "unofficial ports" it only makes me question more where the line is between "this is okay, that is not". That's why a slightly more detailed FAQ might prove useful, but I also agree with the POV that one cannot document every little detail, there will always be more "but what if" questions. Hence why, other than a couple of warnings to people, I choose just not to discuss anything related to ports not provided by the project, because I can't see a "bright line" that makes some emulators okay but other emulators not okay.

In any case, the point to my post was not to whine (I promise!) it was to genuinely try to be helpful by providing context I have personally experienced.

Note: I draw a bright line between "emulation" (running software that pretends to be one machine while running on another, particularly just compiling open source code and linking against a standard library to provide OS level functionality) and "reconfigurable cores" (such as MiSTer or a reimplementation on some other FPGA platform). The former works the same was as a WIndows / Linux / Mac / iOS / Android port, just using a different standard library. The latter actually is a clone of the platform, just using reconfigurable logic instead of hardcoded logic. I understand completely the rationale for not discussing / attempting the latter.

[Perifractic]

I hear you. The simple answer is that this is a non profit project by a small team and we haven’t established a watertight, rock solid, infallible line. I’m sure I’ve discussed this before. I’ll give it one more try.  Let me try to reiterate the POINT of the rule so you can apply it to any number of situations not in the FAQ going forward, by yourself: Discussions about creating clone MACHINES of the X16 that would use our work and deter someone from buying an X16, could reduce the amount the team can recoup the project costs/expenses by. That limits future development. If an FPGA clone was released by someone, and became popular for example, it would be a big problem. We have to therefore nip such discussions at the bud. That’s the POINT. You can easily extrapolate and work back from the point to decide what is safe, not safe, or a gray area. If it’s a gray area, I suggest classing it as not safe and moving on to other ideas.  The big no no historically has been people discussing creating FPGA clones of the X16. That’s a hard no.  You mention bare metal Pi. That is also hardware. If it leads people down a path to one day en mass buy a Pi instead of an X16, it harms the future of the project. Yes we have a Linux emulator, but the aim of that (and Win/Mac) is to give people a development platform for the real machine. We enforce the usage of that with the rules you are querying.  You mention Android emulator. That is software. However it runs on hardware. But that hardware is obviously much less of a challenger to the X16. I do not perceive people using a phone with no keyboard as their daily driver Commander X16. Do you?  So, there’s no simple answer. But if you understand the point now, it should be simple to “do the right thing” in any situation.

[Scott Robison]

4 hours ago, Perifractic said:

I hear you. The simple answer is that this is a non profit project by a small team and we haven’t established a watertight, rock solid, infallible line.



I’m sure I’ve discussed this before. I’ll give it one more try.



{snipped}

I understand your rationale. I think anyone who is interested in a Commander X16, for whom emulation is not adequate, would never be satisfied by a RPi (bare metal or with OS) except as a curiosity with the benefit that the one program running doesn't have to fight with an OS and other applications for use of the machine. But you guys are concerned that it might, and I could be wrong. Hence why I'm not calling for any particular port.

My one and only purpose in posting was to help people avoid talking about "unofficial ports" as was mentioned in a private exchange we had some time ago. When I say "unofficial ports" what I mean is that I was told RPi is a separate machine and not an emulator the project provides for, thus it was off topic. In like fashion, Android & iOS devices are separate machines you do not provide for, so your previous communication to me led me to believe that was a gray area and should be avoided. You've now clarified that it is allowed.

I still look forward to the eventual real CX16, and I do what I can as a fan to evangelize for the platform among friends and acquaintances. One part of that has been trying to help people find their way among conversations that are allowed or not allowed, when I was (very mildly) reprimanded for what I thought was a completely on topic emulation discussion at the time. I now know it isn't.

I will allow you and others to police these conversations in the future, as my (literal) color blindness does not allow me to differentiate the (figurative) shades of gray.

I'm not angry or upset. My point has always been to be helpful, and I fear that some do not think I'm being helpful. I will no longer chime in on emulation discussions beyond the "blessed ports" ... not out of anger, but just in acknowledging I can't tell the shades of gray apart.

[Scott Robison]

13 hours ago, BruceMcF said:

It seems more like they have a ban on emulators that rely ~ directly or indirectly ~ on unlicensed ROMs. There are plenty of "retro" apps on iOS that are running licensed content with an emulator making the app work.

They had at one time a ban on any app that exposes a programmable interface. So a C64 emulator was definitely off limits at one time if it exposed a BASIC command prompt. If it was effectively just an interpreter for a ROM cartridge or pre-loaded binary image, it would be allowed.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4891642/interpreter-for-the-iphone describes in some small detail how these things have evolved over time.

[BruceMcF]

1 hour ago, Scott Robison said:

They had at one time a ban on any app that exposes a programmable interface. So a C64 emulator was definitely off limits at one time if it exposed a BASIC command prompt. If it was effectively just an interpreter for a ROM cartridge or pre-loaded binary image, it would be allowed.



https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4891642/interpreter-for-the-iphone describes in some small detail how these things have evolved over time.

According to that response, the change occurred in 2017:

Quote

Around June, 2017, Apple amending their Developer agreement, section 3.3.2, again, to allow educational programming apps to download and interpret certain kinds of code. The downloaded code has to be viewable and editable, can't modify more than 80% of the display, can't change the type of app, and can't have a storefront, etc.

"Yes, this is CX16 emulator is an educational app, see, yeah, that's the ticket."

[Scott Robison]

7 minutes ago, BruceMcF said:

According to that response, the change occurred in 2017:

Right. Just stating why some people believe that emulators aren't allowed as they provide a programmable interface. https://toucharcade.com/2009/06/20/full-commodore-64-emulator-rejected-from-app-store/ may not be the original article I remember reading, but it is in the same vein: programmable apps aren't allowed (subject to changes in policy which subsequently happened). I probably didn't read it at the time, but months or years later, and assumed the policy had not changed since then.