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.
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 What's there is frequently outdated and some emulators (n64oid) are outright not there.
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.
He didn't even release his source code, so he was in violation of the original license, but tried to profit from it anyways.
Not trolling here, I'm a happy Nexus S (and iPhone 4) owner.
For malicious apps, check all the press over the years regarding malicious Android apps in the Market.
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.
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.
(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)
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.
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).
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.
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.
EDIT: occurs to me people might not have gotten that pun: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Texas_Instrum...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
One single ringtone, Crazy Frog, made its creators a cool half billion back in 2006: http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/09/welcome... Sometimes you're just in the right place at the right time. Also, price/availability makes a huge difference--how many platforms was Angry Birds sold on and how much did it cost compared to Mario?
Lady Gaga may outsell the Beatles this year, but in 2015 it's almost near certain the Beatles/Elvis/Frank Sinatra and other classics will still be selling. There is always going to be a demand for new product, but the iconic games/bands/movies are still as relevant as before and there will be demand to have these classics ported to the new medium.
We're talking about an old game on a device it wasn't meant for, there's no way your average consumer would rather that over a game built for the touch interaction on a device.
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.
If the speculation that these emulators were pulled because they were infringing on GPL code is correct, I wouldn't count on it.
I'd wager this was related to either ROM distribution or violating the license on the emulator code.
It might be that Sony is the entity that raised the infringements to their attention, if the reports of GPL infringement and other "non-commercial use" licensing issues are correct.
Why would Sony be defending GPLed code? Possibly following "the enemy of my enemy can at least be used to inconvenience my enemy" rule. Though there is no evidence that a high profile company is behind the take-down at all - it could well be that one or more of the open source projects caught wind of their code being used in breach of their chosen license and complained to Google and that the timing of Xperia's launch is a coincidence.
The copyright infringement starts when you're making unauthorized copies of the data on game cartridges.
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".
(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.)
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).
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. 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.
(Disclaimer: IANAL, and I've probably misinterpreted something along the way)
 http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/OraGoogle-36.pdf (p. 9)