DraStic

I support open-sourcing it, even though I paid for the emu

I think that making it open-source may be a nice thing, but not always. For example on the Play Store there are so many apps filled with ads that are just PPSSPP programmed to run only the ROM put in by the dev. Or look at almost all that free Nintendo DS or Nintendo 64 emulators on the Play Store, all based on the same code and all having the same features and bugs. I really don't want to see random people making bad money from someone else code.

Sorry SSUPII, but popular opinion say it is a great idea to open-source the emu.

dsattorney wrote:Sorry SSUPII, but popular opinion say it is a great idea to open-source the emu.

Though, to SSUPII's credit, his concern is justified given the Sturgeon's law nature of the store. But then again those who are sensible enough will get the real deal and not those grubby rip-offs cashing in on someone else's hard work.

Yeah, Google could put a non-zero effort on the store but they obviously don't give a f. Some could argue about walled gardens, but there's so much trash that you always need to check the dev to not download crap.

Anyway, the app has enough following as is to draw people, and a rekidling is necessary to not let it be forgotten (although emulators have a long tail).

Fefo wrote:Yeah, Google could put a non-zero effort on the store but they obviously don't give a f. Some could argue about walled gardens, but there's so much trash that you always need to check the dev to not download crap.

Anyway, the app has enough following as is to draw people, and a rekidling is necessary to not let it be forgotten (although emulators have a long tail).

A $20 admission fee and you're good to go. Google Bouncer's doing next to nothing as it seems, though they have clamped down on apps infected with malware and unauthorised root exploits.

That would defeat the purpose of it being free, don't you think?

He is talking about the price for entering Google Play's club, easily recoupped with ads and crypto.

Google seems more about CYA than being proactive, so you better learn how to sift through the waste. A dev base that's hungry for some mobile money and a consumer base which doesn't know/care only make things worse.

Fefo wrote:Google seems more about CYA than being proactive, so you better learn how to sift through the waste. A dev base that's hungry for some mobile money and a consumer base which doesn't know/care only make things worse.

That is, oblivious or non-tech savvy parents and way too many kids making up the Android user base, who couldn't tell Flappy Bird from an ad-riddled Floppy Bird. Coupled with companies with next to no previous experience with app development and simply cashed in on the mobile application craze of the 2010s (which, by the way, is reminiscent of how a myriad of developers rushed through churning out games after Activision introduced the third-party studio model).

huckleberrypie wrote:

Fefo wrote:Google seems more about CYA than being proactive, so you better learn how to sift through the waste. A dev base that's hungry for some mobile money and a consumer base which doesn't know/care only make things worse.

That is, oblivious or non-tech savvy parents and way too many kids making up the Android user base, who couldn't tell Flappy Bird from an ad-riddled Floppy Bird. Coupled with companies with next to no previous experience with app development and simply cashed in on the mobile application craze of the 2010s (which, by the way, is reminiscent of how a myriad of developers rushed through churning out games after Activision introduced the third-party studio model).

More often of not they also violate the open source license for any app they inserted ads into and yet will still try to dispute a DMCA.