

Android Market's most popular emulators disappear without a trace - berberich
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/29/android-markets-most-popular-emulators-disappear-without-a-trac/

======
avree
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.

~~~
daeken
Do you have a source for this? Not unlikely, but odd that it wouldn't be
mentioned.

~~~
Macha
SNESoid code: <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 What's there is frequently outdated and some emulators (n64oid) are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.

------
kelvie
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.

------
Mizza
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>

------
runjake
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.

~~~
rodh257
What apps are you talking about?

~~~
runjake
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
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.

------
jokermatt999
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-
down...](http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/04/psx4droid-3-0-0-is-out-download-
here-self-published/) I don't like the removals, but I'm happy I can still
sideload them without any issues.

~~~
Macha
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
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
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
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.

------
code_duck
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.

------
rodh257
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.

------
cma
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)

~~~
Daniel14
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
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.

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

------
lotusleaf1987
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?

~~~
mikemaccana
"Android is basically giving up their biggest competitive advantage to iPhone
gaming? "

Emulation is a niche. Mainstream audiences want touch touch-enabled games,
designed for small screens (no tiny fonts) at their native resolution without
the hassle of finding illegal ROMs.

~~~
lotusleaf1987
I would think that more people would want to play Super Mario on their phones
than Angry Birds just based on familiarity. How many billions of people know
Mario and how to play it already? Final Fantasy 1/2/3 are selling well on iOS.
What is your source for your assertion over what mainstream audiences want?

~~~
27182818284
No, you're absolutely correct, more people _do_ want to play Super Mario than
Angry Birds, but more people do not want the hassle of getting a ROM, learning
what the heck a ROM is, etc. That Nintendo and the other companies haven't
dedicated a small team to native Android / iPhone development to make some
small games for the phones surprises me.

~~~
Steko
It seems to me the other companies are coming out with native ports (sega,
atari, capcom, square, etc.).

OTOH how can it be surprising that Nintendo is not cutting the legs off it's
own platforms? 25+ years I can't recall their first party titles on anything
but Nintendo consoles.

~~~
mdwrigh2
While I'm loathe to dig up the memories, they did at one point release on
someone else's console: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-
i_games_from_The_Legend_of_Z...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-
i_games_from_The_Legend_of_Zelda_series#Link:_The_Faces_of_Evil)

~~~
Steko
Good catch, wow how did I miss those (well cdi but still).

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

~~~
jbermudes
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.

~~~
Tichy
"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
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.)

~~~
Tichy
So APIs are not copyrightable?

~~~
joel_ms
Good question.

Copyright is concerned with protecting original _works_ , so it depends on
what exactly you're referring to by "API". My interpretation is that the
technical document describing an API is an original work and that the library
implementing an API is an original work (provided they do not copy or modify
existing works protected by copyright, then they are derivative works), but
the idea the API conveys is not protected by copyright (this is what's known
as the idea-expression divide[1]).

This is further complicated by the fact that we're discussing the law here so
we can't assume anything to be logical or consistent. In the US, the DMCA have
specific portions concerning the legality of reverse engineering for various
purposes, which have implications for someone wishing to write an independent
implementation of an API[2]. Maybe someone would argue that any implementation
written according to the API specification is a derivative work?

I don't think there's a definitive answer to your question, since AFAIK this
haven't been tested in court. In fact, in the ongoing patent/copyright dispute
between Oracle and Google, Oracle claims Google violated Oracle's copyright by
reproducing Java API's in Android[3].

(Disclaimer: IANAL, and I've probably misinterpreted something along the way)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide>

[2] [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1094103/is-copying-an-
api...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1094103/is-copying-an-api-a-breach-
of-copyright)

[3] <http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/OraGoogle-36.pdf> (p. 9)

