Google may be right in banning RetroArch 1.9.0 from Google Play

RetroArch Android devices
#1

The libretro blog says that RetroArch 1.9.0 won’t be on Google Play because:

Issue: Violation of Malicious Behavior policy

An app distributed via Google Play […] may not download executable code (e.g. dex, JAR, .so files) from a source other than Google Play.

The thing that this article doesn’t mention though is that RetroArch downoads cores without any security whatsoever – plain HTTP and no digital signatures. And Android users are the lucky ones - they have sandboxing by default, unlike Windows and desktop Linux users. People love to complain about restrictive app store policies, but apparently they really are for our own good…

1 Like
#2

You can download an apk on an android device without any signatures or signing using the web browser, so I doubt that was the reason it wasn’t allowed into the store. Retroarch is designed to execute external binaries - heck I can even compile my own and throw it in and make it work. Thats what it’s designed to do.

I think your security concern is a bit overblown. While I agree https is good, what uber hacker is going to take the time to gin up a MITM attack to wreak havoc on some retro gaming enthusiasts PC?

#3

Google along with android should crash and burn we don’t need android we have Linux mobile OS’s and open source phones like the PinePhone now… It sounds harsh but these big techs like to act like gatekeepers.

We should work on supporting Linux and other open source platforms.

2 Likes
#4

No, they are not. They are for the good of corporate walled gardens and detrimental to hobbyist computing, which is what most emulators are.

The idea that you don’t own and thus don’t have the right to control the device you bought is not for our own good, by any stretch of the imagination.

3 Likes
#5

I think there’s a big difference between letting someone side load an apk after they went into options and allowed unsafe sources and allowing unvetted executables through official store apps.

This is annoying but it sounds like a reasonable policy to be honest.