7 ms·

Android Market's most popular emulators disappear without a trace

75 points by berberich 15y ago

cma 15y ago
So, from Honeycomb onwards, Android is no longer open source aside from the places where they are forced to be (through the GPL), and the market is more of an Apple app store. (or were there some copyright claims involved here? e.g. making a TI-89 emulator should be ok for the market, but you can't include TI's ROM)
- starnix17 15y ago
  "e.g. making a TI-89 emulator should be ok for the market, but you can't include TI's ROM" I don't think so. For example, I know the PSX emulator didn't include any of the required BIOS files and they are all still removed. It seems that if someone big enough complains, Google will remove any emulator.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Well, despite acting pretty similar in the past in a few key cases (I crack my self up :P), TI has usually acted more or less sane when dealing with their hacker community. They have no issue with the numerous emulators out there for their calculators so long as you don't distribute one of their roms. EDIT: occurs to me people might not have gotten that pun: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Texas_Instrum...
- Kylekramer 15y ago
  The boilerplate response: Android's open (except for Honeycomb), Android Market is not and has never been open and is nearly completely at Google's discretion, and you can normally install these apps outside of the market in cases like these. That said, it is a frustrating move. The problem is similar to the one I foresee happening soon with the Mac App Store. Sure, it is great to have the convenience of the one true app store alongside the freedom to install what you please, but the power of the first tends to undermine the second until the freedom is mostly theoretical as the platform still is nearly entirely in one company's hands (e.g., the current state of Android).
- theBobMcCormick 15y ago
  The big difference is that with Android, you only need to change 1 checkbox in your settings and you can download apps from outside the Android Market (That's how you install the Amazon Market for example). With the iPhone, there's no way to download apps from outside the App Store.
  - cma 15y ago
    That's not true of all Android branded phones.
    - andrewpi 15y ago
      Actually, I believe only AT&T blocked non-Market installs, and they are removing that restriction going forward.
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      Branded? AT&T is no longer locking down future devices, has enabled it on some of their older devices and it's easy to do via ADB.
      - cma 15y ago
        re: branded There are certain requirements to use the Android trademark. For instance, Barnes and Noble don't get to use the Android brand for the Nook. Allowing unapproved apps isn't one of those requirements, and in practice some Android branded devices have indeed disallowed such apps.
- Daniel14 15y ago
  Android as an OS is open source, the Android Market isn't. The market is completely controlled by Google, and since you can still install .apk files without using the Market I don't think this is such a great deal as Engadget paints it to be.
  - Xuzz 15y ago
    Well, except Honeycomb. From what I've been able to tell, that will only be open sourced when Ice Cream Sandwich is released, which appears to near at the end of the year.
  - Someone 15y ago
    Totally unrelated: interesting phrase, that "The market is completely controlled by Google". Especially given the (accidentally, I assume) missing capital M, it made me think of the "is App Store a generic term?" discussion. I think your post shows that generic words can, at the least, come very close to being specific terms.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- foob 15y ago
  So, from Honeycomb onwards, Android is no longer open source aside from the places where they are forced to be That's factually incorrect and sounds like flamebait. They've stated that they're going to begin releasing the code again with Ice Cream Sandwich and not wanting to release bad code that was forced by a deadline isn't totally unreasonable. the market is more of an Apple app store. It's always been moderated. As has already been mentioned in another response the big difference is that on Android you can install apps from a different app store.
  - qjz 15y ago
    What's factually incorrect? It's not open source if they don't release the code (no matter how bad it might be).
    - cookiecaper 15y ago
      It's incorrect because he said "From Honeycomb onwards...". It is not an ongoing change in policy, but a one-time exception that was made specifically in the case of Honeycomb because Honeycomb was not really ready for distribution. Ice Cream Sandwich (i.e., Honeycomb+1) will be open like Froyo and its predecessors.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- commandar 15y ago
  >So, from Honeycomb onwards, Android is no longer open source aside from the places where they are forced to be (through the GPL) As others have pointed out, that's only for Honeycomb. Google has said all along that the code would be going public again once it's been cleaned up and the phone and tablet versions have been remerged for the next major release. >(or were there some copyright claims involved here? e.g. making a TI-89 emulator should be ok for the market, but you can't include TI's ROM) The comments over on reddit are suggesting that these emulators were based on GPL'd emulators and the developer wasn't complying with the GPL. If that's the case, Google was absolutely right in pulling them from the market. The market is minimally moderated, but blatant copyright infringement is still a no-no for obvious reasons.
- yanw 15y ago
  Can we please stop the 'is it really open?!' silliness that gets triggered after every such incident. They specifically said that there will be a code drop, as for the app removal it's probably due to copyright owner request and they had to comply.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    Your definition of open source must be different than mine - "we will drop the source if and when we feel like it" doesn't smell like an open source project to me.
    - cookiecaper 15y ago
      The GPL and LGPL components have been released. The Apache License is approved by OSI, making it an "open-source license" by that organization's definition. Copyleft is not a mandatory component of open-source. Do you want to argue that *BSD is not really open-source because of its non-copyleft license? It may not match Stallman's definition of Free Software, but it does match OSI's definition of "open-source". Google has a right to withhold the non-copyleft components if they don't feel they're ready for distribution. Open-source doesn't mean that you can force someone's hand if they're not ready to share. Can you call Theo de Raat and compel him to release an unpublished branch of modifications to OpenBSD and then accuse him of not really developing open-source programs because he only releases source "if and when he feels like it". Google's hand was forced on Honeycomb and it wasn't really ready for distribution. If you're upset about this, you shouldn't buy a Honeycomb product because it doesn't come with a full stack of source. That's a great idea. Honeycomb+1 will have source like its predecessors.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
lotusleaf1987 15y ago
So Android is basically giving up their biggest competitive advantage to iPhone gaming? Android's emulators always seemed to trump iPhones wider selection of native games. This is almost certainly a result of the launch of Sony's Xperia aka Playstation Android phone. Can't you still just sideload the app? Maybe Amazon's Android store will allow the emulators back in? Or will Google be able to block this?
- commandar 15y ago
  >Maybe Amazon's Android store will allow the emulators back in? If the speculation that these emulators were pulled because they were infringing on GPL code is correct, I wouldn't count on it.
  - lotusleaf1987 15y ago
    It seems like the timing is too coincidental/coordinated with the Sony Xperia Play phone launching. Why would you buy games from the PSN store when you can buy an emulator for $8 and then get the games for free? It's in Google's interest to keep Sony happy, more than it is a few developers. Google also leaves a loophole because you can still side-load the apps.
    - commandar 15y ago
      If Google's goal is getting emulators off the market, they're doing a pretty poor job of it: https://market.android.com/search?q=emulator&so=1&c=apps https://market.android.com/search?q=emulator&so=1&c=...
      - lotusleaf1987 15y ago
        Great point, then maybe avree (above) is correct and the code was indeed stolen.
    - T-R 15y ago
      That's a fair argument regarding PSX4Droid, but I doubt that's the case with this group of emulators. Sony doesn't have any relationship with the SNES or the Genesis, so with the exception of maybe a few ported games, it's doubtful they'll be selling that IP on their own store. In fact, the controller on the Xperia Play would make those emulators a pretty compelling reason to buy it. I'd wager this was related to either ROM distribution or violating the license on the emulator code.
runjake 15y ago
Yet Google can't remove the crapware and cull Market for apps that steal your data. Not trolling here, I'm a happy Nexus S (and iPhone 4) owner.
- mail2345 15y ago
  DroidDream was yanked, all though that was more malware.
- dpcan 15y ago
  I want them to add categories and monito them. Why are chess, bubble popper games, and mole poking games in the top of the sports games categories?????
- rodh257 15y ago
  What apps are you talking about?
  - runjake 15y ago
    Search for any popular app, like Angry Birds, and note that its normally pretty hard to find the actual app you're after amongst all the crapware (ringtones, live wallpapers, etc) that attempt to trick you into purchasing them. For malicious apps, check all the press over the years regarding malicious Android apps in the Market.
    - rodh257 15y ago
      So you are saying Google should decide what is crapware and what isn't? The only thing I think that needs to happen is they change the ranking algorithm for search so it's easier to find the real app, not that I ever have any problem with that. All the press I'm finding re malicious apps is the ones saying Google has removed them, as they should. If you know any more that haven't been removed I suggest you report them.
Mizza 15y ago
Google still has not replied to the complaints set out by the Android Developers Union - this is a clear example about why we need demand #5. http://www.andevuni.org http://www.andevuni.org
yanw 15y ago
It is obviously a copyright thing and they had to comply with removal requests.
- jbermudes 15y ago
  Emulators themselves do not constitute copyright infringement. For instance, if I wanted to write my own software to run on a Super Nintendo I can do so and run it on an emulator or build a cartridge and flash it on there to play it on the real system. The copyright infringement starts when you're making unauthorized copies of the data on game cartridges.
  - baddox 15y ago
    The world you describe sounds pretty reasonable, but don't count on it reflecting reality.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Tichy 15y ago
    "For instance, if I wanted to write my own software to run on a Super Nintendo" That is not the same thing as writing a Super Nintendo emulator and selling it. I can think of lots of things that could be copyrighted about Super Nintendo's "OS".
    - joel_ms 15y ago
      Only the the actual implementation code (and subsequent compiled result) is under copyright, anyone is free to write an independent implementation that's not based on any of the original copyrighted code. (There is of course the possibility of patents covering the innovations in the SNES, but that's a separate issue from copyright, and I have no idea how software patents in Japan worked around the time the SNES got released.)
      - jbermudes 15y ago
rodh257 15y ago
Everyone always goes overboard with their reaction to any app removal from the marketplace. I don't see what the big deal is, I'm glad to see Google keeping the market from being too dodgey. All of these "oh well this is pretty much Apple" comments are silly. If you are doing something illegal, you can distribute the .apk online, anything else can go on the market without a lengthy review process. It's worlds apart.
code_duck 15y ago
The emulator apps have companion apps which download copyrighted ROMs for you. They push the download system in the emulator app description, as well as within the emulator itself. I wonder if that was the problem? Looking forward to the details. I'm pretty annoyed with this, as I've purchased two of yongzh's apps, and don't have them installed on my phone currently - I was expecting to be able to reinstall them anytime. So now Android has lost the two main things I liked, emulators and Grooveshark. If they're going to bring us all the bad things about Apple's system and none of the good, I might as well just get an iPhone next time. Or, if yongzh was infringing GPL as a few comments say, never mind! Hopefully someone normal will release these apps soon. There's plenty of emulator code out there to go by.
jokermatt999 15y ago
The developer of PSX4Droid made it free but adsupported from his site. http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/04/psx4droid-3-0-0-is-out-download-here-self-published/ http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/04/psx4droid-3-0-0-is-out-down... I don't like the removals, but I'm happy I can still sideload them without any issues.
- Macha 15y ago
  And he also finally released the source code. It has always been based on PCSX despite Zod's bullshit claims otherwise. He was violating the GPL with it, and I'm glad Google pulled his app from the store as he started to comply with the GPL as a result. If only saurik would do the same to Zod's iPhone apps...
  - Xuzz 15y ago
    Jay (saurik) doesn't actually have any control over what's available in Cydia, just as Ubuntu doesn't control what's included in a third-party repository you add. You can, however, take it up with the repository hosting the packages: but in this case, I think ZodTTD hosts them himself. You'd have to likely get the actual copyright holder to demand he take it down, or post the source code.
    - Macha 15y ago
      Saurik has control over what is in the Cydia store, unless I am mistaken about how the Cydia Store works. He also has control of the community repos. PSX4iphone and snes4iphone are featured apps in the Cydia Store. ZodTTD is a community source. Having a serial GPL violator as one of the most promoted Cydia Store coders and a community source makes the whole Jailbreak community look bad.
      - Xuzz 15y ago
        That's a good point, I didn't realize they were in the Cydia Store. I've asked saurik about it. (I thought that ZodTTD had actually released the source, but it appears it is often years out of date.) And you can't ever sell SNES9x, which he is doing. Sigh.
kelvie 15y ago
The issue here is that the author here used the emulator code bases (from the Snes9x project and others) and tried to profit from them, which is probably against the license of the underlying code. He didn't even release his source code, so he was in violation of the original license, but tried to profit from it anyways.
avree 15y ago
The emulators were created with code that was stolen. Google is simply cracking down on licensing violations. They're not taking a stance against emulation in general, or anything like that. I'm sure that if you submitted an emulator that you actually wrote, rather than stealing, and sold it, it would stay up just fine.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- daeken 15y ago
  Do you have a source for this? Not unlikely, but odd that it wouldn't be mentioned.
  - Macha 15y ago
    SNESoid code: https://github.com/Pretz/SNesoid/tree/ https://github.com/Pretz/SNesoid/tree/ This is the stuff that is under a non commercial license that he is selling. The readme also links to a sourceforge account with all the code yongzh has released. What's there is frequently outdated and some emulators (n64oid) are outright not there.
  - drtse4 15y ago
    The issue here seems the same for all the mentioned emulators, while he have developed a common lower layer graphic library for them, the actual emulation code is from other famous open-source emulators (original project or ports, all with non-commercial licenses). E.g. snesoid is based on a snes9x port. Anyone with a G1 or G2/Magic will remember when all the yong's emulators suddenly appeared on the market nearly two years ago, at the same time he published nes/snes/gba/mame emulators. Considering the time needed to develop a single platform emulator that supports a good share of games (usually years, maybe with few exception in the history of console emulation), developing them all from scratch would have been impossible imho.
dpcan 15y ago
I don't know if this is why, but my sales are up about 10% today over compared to the last week's average, so I don't know how niche this really was but my guess is that emulation may have been curbing the gaming needs of many. Not sure though.
tluyben2 15y ago
Wow the comments on Engadget are amazingly stupid. Maybe i'm just spoiled.

75 points by berberich 15y ago

cma 15y ago

So, from Honeycomb onwards, Android is no longer open source aside from the places where they are forced to be (through the GPL), and the market is more of an Apple app store. (or were there some copyright claims involved here? e.g. making a TI-89 emulator should be ok for the market, but you can't include TI's ROM)

starnix17 15y ago
"e.g. making a TI-89 emulator should be ok for the market, but you can't include TI's ROM" I don't think so. For example, I know the PSX emulator didn't include any of the required BIOS files and they are all still removed. It seems that if someone big enough complains, Google will remove any emulator.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Well, despite acting pretty similar in the past in a few key cases (I crack my self up :P), TI has usually acted more or less sane when dealing with their hacker community. They have no issue with the numerous emulators out there for their calculators so long as you don't distribute one of their roms. EDIT: occurs to me people might not have gotten that pun: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Texas_Instrum...
Kylekramer 15y ago
The boilerplate response: Android's open (except for Honeycomb), Android Market is not and has never been open and is nearly completely at Google's discretion, and you can normally install these apps outside of the market in cases like these. That said, it is a frustrating move. The problem is similar to the one I foresee happening soon with the Mac App Store. Sure, it is great to have the convenience of the one true app store alongside the freedom to install what you please, but the power of the first tends to undermine the second until the freedom is mostly theoretical as the platform still is nearly entirely in one company's hands (e.g., the current state of Android).
theBobMcCormick 15y ago
The big difference is that with Android, you only need to change 1 checkbox in your settings and you can download apps from outside the Android Market (That's how you install the Amazon Market for example). With the iPhone, there's no way to download apps from outside the App Store.
- cma 15y ago
  That's not true of all Android branded phones.
  - andrewpi 15y ago
    Actually, I believe only AT&T blocked non-Market installs, and they are removing that restriction going forward.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    Branded? AT&T is no longer locking down future devices, has enabled it on some of their older devices and it's easy to do via ADB.
    - cma 15y ago
      re: branded There are certain requirements to use the Android trademark. For instance, Barnes and Noble don't get to use the Android brand for the Nook. Allowing unapproved apps isn't one of those requirements, and in practice some Android branded devices have indeed disallowed such apps.
Daniel14 15y ago
Android as an OS is open source, the Android Market isn't. The market is completely controlled by Google, and since you can still install .apk files without using the Market I don't think this is such a great deal as Engadget paints it to be.
- Xuzz 15y ago
  Well, except Honeycomb. From what I've been able to tell, that will only be open sourced when Ice Cream Sandwich is released, which appears to near at the end of the year.
- Someone 15y ago
  Totally unrelated: interesting phrase, that "The market is completely controlled by Google". Especially given the (accidentally, I assume) missing capital M, it made me think of the "is App Store a generic term?" discussion. I think your post shows that generic words can, at the least, come very close to being specific terms.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
foob 15y ago
So, from Honeycomb onwards, Android is no longer open source aside from the places where they are forced to be That's factually incorrect and sounds like flamebait. They've stated that they're going to begin releasing the code again with Ice Cream Sandwich and not wanting to release bad code that was forced by a deadline isn't totally unreasonable. the market is more of an Apple app store. It's always been moderated. As has already been mentioned in another response the big difference is that on Android you can install apps from a different app store.
- qjz 15y ago
  What's factually incorrect? It's not open source if they don't release the code (no matter how bad it might be).
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    It's incorrect because he said "From Honeycomb onwards...". It is not an ongoing change in policy, but a one-time exception that was made specifically in the case of Honeycomb because Honeycomb was not really ready for distribution. Ice Cream Sandwich (i.e., Honeycomb+1) will be open like Froyo and its predecessors.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
commandar 15y ago
>So, from Honeycomb onwards, Android is no longer open source aside from the places where they are forced to be (through the GPL) As others have pointed out, that's only for Honeycomb. Google has said all along that the code would be going public again once it's been cleaned up and the phone and tablet versions have been remerged for the next major release. >(or were there some copyright claims involved here? e.g. making a TI-89 emulator should be ok for the market, but you can't include TI's ROM) The comments over on reddit are suggesting that these emulators were based on GPL'd emulators and the developer wasn't complying with the GPL. If that's the case, Google was absolutely right in pulling them from the market. The market is minimally moderated, but blatant copyright infringement is still a no-no for obvious reasons.
yanw 15y ago
Can we please stop the 'is it really open?!' silliness that gets triggered after every such incident. They specifically said that there will be a code drop, as for the app removal it's probably due to copyright owner request and they had to comply.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  Your definition of open source must be different than mine - "we will drop the source if and when we feel like it" doesn't smell like an open source project to me.
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    The GPL and LGPL components have been released. The Apache License is approved by OSI, making it an "open-source license" by that organization's definition. Copyleft is not a mandatory component of open-source. Do you want to argue that *BSD is not really open-source because of its non-copyleft license? It may not match Stallman's definition of Free Software, but it does match OSI's definition of "open-source". Google has a right to withhold the non-copyleft components if they don't feel they're ready for distribution. Open-source doesn't mean that you can force someone's hand if they're not ready to share. Can you call Theo de Raat and compel him to release an unpublished branch of modifications to OpenBSD and then accuse him of not really developing open-source programs because he only releases source "if and when he feels like it". Google's hand was forced on Honeycomb and it wasn't really ready for distribution. If you're upset about this, you shouldn't buy a Honeycomb product because it doesn't come with a full stack of source. That's a great idea. Honeycomb+1 will have source like its predecessors.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

lotusleaf1987 15y ago

So Android is basically giving up their biggest competitive advantage to iPhone gaming? Android's emulators always seemed to trump iPhones wider selection of native games. This is almost certainly a result of the launch of Sony's Xperia aka Playstation Android phone. Can't you still just sideload the app? Maybe Amazon's Android store will allow the emulators back in? Or will Google be able to block this?

commandar 15y ago
>Maybe Amazon's Android store will allow the emulators back in? If the speculation that these emulators were pulled because they were infringing on GPL code is correct, I wouldn't count on it.
- lotusleaf1987 15y ago
  It seems like the timing is too coincidental/coordinated with the Sony Xperia Play phone launching. Why would you buy games from the PSN store when you can buy an emulator for $8 and then get the games for free? It's in Google's interest to keep Sony happy, more than it is a few developers. Google also leaves a loophole because you can still side-load the apps.
  - commandar 15y ago
    If Google's goal is getting emulators off the market, they're doing a pretty poor job of it: https://market.android.com/search?q=emulator&so=1&c=apps https://market.android.com/search?q=emulator&so=1&c=...
    - lotusleaf1987 15y ago
      Great point, then maybe avree (above) is correct and the code was indeed stolen.
  - T-R 15y ago
    That's a fair argument regarding PSX4Droid, but I doubt that's the case with this group of emulators. Sony doesn't have any relationship with the SNES or the Genesis, so with the exception of maybe a few ported games, it's doubtful they'll be selling that IP on their own store. In fact, the controller on the Xperia Play would make those emulators a pretty compelling reason to buy it. I'd wager this was related to either ROM distribution or violating the license on the emulator code.

runjake 15y ago

Yet Google can't remove the crapware and cull Market for apps that steal your data. Not trolling here, I'm a happy Nexus S (and iPhone 4) owner.

mail2345 15y ago
DroidDream was yanked, all though that was more malware.
dpcan 15y ago
I want them to add categories and monito them. Why are chess, bubble popper games, and mole poking games in the top of the sports games categories?????
rodh257 15y ago
What apps are you talking about?
- runjake 15y ago
  Search for any popular app, like Angry Birds, and note that its normally pretty hard to find the actual app you're after amongst all the crapware (ringtones, live wallpapers, etc) that attempt to trick you into purchasing them. For malicious apps, check all the press over the years regarding malicious Android apps in the Market.
  - rodh257 15y ago
    So you are saying Google should decide what is crapware and what isn't? The only thing I think that needs to happen is they change the ranking algorithm for search so it's easier to find the real app, not that I ever have any problem with that. All the press I'm finding re malicious apps is the ones saying Google has removed them, as they should. If you know any more that haven't been removed I suggest you report them.

Mizza 15y ago

Google still has not replied to the complaints set out by the Android Developers Union - this is a clear example about why we need demand #5. http://www.andevuni.org http://www.andevuni.org

yanw 15y ago

It is obviously a copyright thing and they had to comply with removal requests.

jbermudes 15y ago
Emulators themselves do not constitute copyright infringement. For instance, if I wanted to write my own software to run on a Super Nintendo I can do so and run it on an emulator or build a cartridge and flash it on there to play it on the real system. The copyright infringement starts when you're making unauthorized copies of the data on game cartridges.
- baddox 15y ago
  The world you describe sounds pretty reasonable, but don't count on it reflecting reality.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Tichy 15y ago
  "For instance, if I wanted to write my own software to run on a Super Nintendo" That is not the same thing as writing a Super Nintendo emulator and selling it. I can think of lots of things that could be copyrighted about Super Nintendo's "OS".
  - joel_ms 15y ago
    Only the the actual implementation code (and subsequent compiled result) is under copyright, anyone is free to write an independent implementation that's not based on any of the original copyrighted code. (There is of course the possibility of patents covering the innovations in the SNES, but that's a separate issue from copyright, and I have no idea how software patents in Japan worked around the time the SNES got released.)
    - jbermudes 15y ago

rodh257 15y ago

Everyone always goes overboard with their reaction to any app removal from the marketplace. I don't see what the big deal is, I'm glad to see Google keeping the market from being too dodgey. All of these "oh well this is pretty much Apple" comments are silly. If you are doing something illegal, you can distribute the .apk online, anything else can go on the market without a lengthy review process. It's worlds apart.

code_duck 15y ago

The emulator apps have companion apps which download copyrighted ROMs for you. They push the download system in the emulator app description, as well as within the emulator itself. I wonder if that was the problem? Looking forward to the details. I'm pretty annoyed with this, as I've purchased two of yongzh's apps, and don't have them installed on my phone currently - I was expecting to be able to reinstall them anytime. So now Android has lost the two main things I liked, emulators and Grooveshark. If they're going to bring us all the bad things about Apple's system and none of the good, I might as well just get an iPhone next time. Or, if yongzh was infringing GPL as a few comments say, never mind! Hopefully someone normal will release these apps soon. There's plenty of emulator code out there to go by.

jokermatt999 15y ago

The developer of PSX4Droid made it free but adsupported from his site. http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/04/psx4droid-3-0-0-is-out-download-here-self-published/ http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/04/psx4droid-3-0-0-is-out-down... I don't like the removals, but I'm happy I can still sideload them without any issues.

Macha 15y ago
And he also finally released the source code. It has always been based on PCSX despite Zod's bullshit claims otherwise. He was violating the GPL with it, and I'm glad Google pulled his app from the store as he started to comply with the GPL as a result. If only saurik would do the same to Zod's iPhone apps...
- Xuzz 15y ago
  Jay (saurik) doesn't actually have any control over what's available in Cydia, just as Ubuntu doesn't control what's included in a third-party repository you add. You can, however, take it up with the repository hosting the packages: but in this case, I think ZodTTD hosts them himself. You'd have to likely get the actual copyright holder to demand he take it down, or post the source code.
  - Macha 15y ago
    Saurik has control over what is in the Cydia store, unless I am mistaken about how the Cydia Store works. He also has control of the community repos. PSX4iphone and snes4iphone are featured apps in the Cydia Store. ZodTTD is a community source. Having a serial GPL violator as one of the most promoted Cydia Store coders and a community source makes the whole Jailbreak community look bad.
    - Xuzz 15y ago
      That's a good point, I didn't realize they were in the Cydia Store. I've asked saurik about it. (I thought that ZodTTD had actually released the source, but it appears it is often years out of date.) And you can't ever sell SNES9x, which he is doing. Sigh.

kelvie 15y ago

The issue here is that the author here used the emulator code bases (from the Snes9x project and others) and tried to profit from them, which is probably against the license of the underlying code. He didn't even release his source code, so he was in violation of the original license, but tried to profit from it anyways.

avree 15y ago

The emulators were created with code that was stolen. Google is simply cracking down on licensing violations. They're not taking a stance against emulation in general, or anything like that. I'm sure that if you submitted an emulator that you actually wrote, rather than stealing, and sold it, it would stay up just fine.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
daeken 15y ago
Do you have a source for this? Not unlikely, but odd that it wouldn't be mentioned.
- Macha 15y ago
  SNESoid code: https://github.com/Pretz/SNesoid/tree/ https://github.com/Pretz/SNesoid/tree/ This is the stuff that is under a non commercial license that he is selling. The readme also links to a sourceforge account with all the code yongzh has released. What's there is frequently outdated and some emulators (n64oid) are outright not there.
- drtse4 15y ago
  The issue here seems the same for all the mentioned emulators, while he have developed a common lower layer graphic library for them, the actual emulation code is from other famous open-source emulators (original project or ports, all with non-commercial licenses). E.g. snesoid is based on a snes9x port. Anyone with a G1 or G2/Magic will remember when all the yong's emulators suddenly appeared on the market nearly two years ago, at the same time he published nes/snes/gba/mame emulators. Considering the time needed to develop a single platform emulator that supports a good share of games (usually years, maybe with few exception in the history of console emulation), developing them all from scratch would have been impossible imho.

dpcan 15y ago

I don't know if this is why, but my sales are up about 10% today over compared to the last week's average, so I don't know how niche this really was but my guess is that emulation may have been curbing the gaming needs of many. Not sure though.

tluyben2 15y ago

Wow the comments on Engadget are amazingly stupid. Maybe i'm just spoiled.