Google Pulls PSX4Droid For Sony's Xperia Play

tlhIngan writes "Google has apparently pulled an Apple and pulled PSX4Droid (a PlayStation emulator) from the Marketplace, citing 'policy violations' for it reason. It's believed that Sony's Xperia Play (aka Playstation Phone) release was behind the move. Strangely, FPSE is still on the Marketplace."

Comments

Re:!apple

[ZiakII]

Yep, I am sure it will go on the amazon market. Although personally I never understood using these emulators on phones. They are god awful with the lack of any real buttons on the phone. Also the emulation is usually terrible, for any consoles SNES+.

If you guys were half as nerdcore as you claim...

[Anonymous Coward]

..you'd know that PSX4Droid was pulled from the markert for GPL violations, which is why FPSE is still on the Market

Not the end of the world

[SkankinMonkey]

While I don't like the decision to remove the app from the store, and hope google clarifies the reasoning (at least to the publisher) it's not the end of the world for most Android devices since they can install the app manually. Neither iOS or Windows 7 Mobile allow for this as far as I know. And yes, some android devices don't either (mostly at&t phones) but, for now, they are the exception to the rule.

Re:Not the end of the world

[fermion]

Jailbroken iPhons, which is no hard to do can load anything. Apple cannot remove anything from your phone without your knowledge, so even banned apps stay on. This is not true with google. Previous versions of iPhone do run the latest iOS. Something not true of Android(yes my 3GS has the latest iOS). The OS is no held from certain users because they did not buy from the right OEM. Apple is not going to sue users because they bough phones from OEM without proper liscense. Apple may have silly rules, but at least the rules are initially sated. One rule is Apple decides what goes in the App store. Google has no such rule, except when it does.

Re:Not the end of the world

[Wovel]

Except that google actually has removed applications from people's phones before. Was even a story here on /. Feel free to look it up.

Re:rouge apps

[JesusFreke]

Name one Android phone that doesn't let you sideload applications.

Oh wait, you can't. Because phones *must* allow you to sideload applications. Otherwise, they won't pass the Android compatibility test suite, and can no longer be called an Android phone - and, more critically, can't bundle any of Google's applications like the market, gmail, maps, etc.

But yes, you could have a non-Android phone/device that is *based* on Android that doesn't allow sideloading of apps (like the B&N nook for example).

Are three OK?

[tepples]

Name one Android phone that doesn't let you sideload applications.

Motorola Backflip, HTC Aria, Samsung Captivate, and other Android-powered phones sold in AT&T stores all hide the "Unknown sources" checkbox from the end user.

Re:Are three OK?

[dragonturtle69]

A quick Google or two shows a mix of solutions, Samsung being roughly to use the Samsung ADB driver then CLI, Motorola being more difficult upfront. Maybe someone using a phone on AT&T can comment more. I'm especially curious since Norton Security on Android updates outside of the Android market, if the hidden setting becomes available when Norton wants to update the app.

Just another reason to not use AT&T IMHO

Re:Are three OK?

[tepples]

As I understand it:

1. The freely available drivers have to be modified to recognize different manufacturer IDs.
2. Modifying a driver invalidates its digital signature.
3. Installing a driver on Windows Vista 64-bit or Windows 7 64-bit that has not been signed with a certificate from a CA trusted by Microsoft requires rebooting a PC into a noticeably inconvenient "test mode".
4. Getting your own certificate from a CA trusted by Microsoft costs hundreds of USD per year.

What did I miss?

Re:!apple

[PopeRatzo]

in fact it might be good if they did more of that to prevent rouge apps from appearing there.

I think Apple users might be more interested in the rouge apps.

It does bring out the cheekbones after all, and when used properly with a carefully-blended shadow it makes the eyes just pop!

Re:Sony's war on piracy

[yeshuawatso]

Maybe not piracy since without downloading the giant ISO files to play PS1 games, the emulator is just a nice file explorer shell for OI File Manger. Trademark infringement is more likely.

See here: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:a7trs0.2.13

Sony has a registered trademark for PSX that pretty much includes anything dealing with electronics.

Interestingly though, Nintendo owns the patent for emulation of games on mobile devices: Patent #6,672,963

Based on Nintendo's patent, it will be 2024 before we can emulate on mobile devices freely, so ALL emulators could be removed from the market for patent infringement. But then again, there is no criminal charges for violating a patent, just civil penalties if the patent holder decides to file suit. I believe most of the emulator developers don't reside in the US, so I can see why their out of Nintendo's reach.

Re:!apple

[Nursie]

Turns out it's GPL violation, the guy based it off PCSX and wouldn't release the source.

Re:the waning days of ownership

[Osgeld]

wow, I think a hippy just threw up over the idealism overload presented in that post