Slashdot Mirror
Alibaba Says Google Threatened Acer With Banishment From Android
Spy Handler writes "In a Microsoft-esque move, Google threatened Acer with banishment from Android if it went ahead with its new cellphone project with Alibaba (China's version of Amazon), using an OS called Aliyun. Acer has remained silent on the issue, but Alibaba reports that they received notification from Google, stating 'if the new product launch with Aliyun went ahead, Google would terminate Android product cooperation and related technical authorization with Acer.' A possible reason for Google's upset is that the Aliyun OS, which is not Android, can run Android apps as well as its own."
This just establishes the fact that Google is evil. Not only are they spying everything we do, they try to control the market with shit moves like this. I mean come on, do you have to repeat all the bad decisions Microsoft did?
I say we stop them. Let's break up the company. It's obviously too big. Since Google haven't themselves invented anything else than their search engine it's easy to break them apart. Liberate Android, YouTube, Chrome, Gmail, their video codec and so on.. they've all bought up other companies, anyway.
Do you hear that Google?
Do you hear the sounds?
These sounds are made by users. These sounds are break-up sounds. And we're only getting started!
To the barricades, Slashdotters!
I trusted you Google. I trusted you to be better than this. You weren't.
Anyone want to suggest any other search engines?
They could still use Android all they wanted if they did this, Google just wasn't going to go out of their way to help them. Don't they have the right to pick and choose who they work with?
IANAL, but I think this represents restraint of trade. So not only is it (arguably) evil (TM) it likely also illegal.
Brett
Is there *any* proof of this whatsoever? Forgive me if I don't take Alibaba's word for it.
They're just following the company motto. What's the motta with that?
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
A literal flood of google apologists and shills.
The entire mobile phone ecosystem is evil, starting with the carriers.
iPhone 5 sucks, amirite guise, heh?!
Don't get your panties in a knot, Google haters.
Willing to bet money that this OS is a fork of the android codebase (It's from china, runs google aps, really a no brainer). While a legitimate use of the open source software, you might understand why google would be sour on Acer's moves.
Google makes money on android by creating business partnerships with android device makers(and carriers) to provide Google premium services that run on the andriod platform (Play store, maps, ad services, etc) You can buy a non-google partnered android device, the andriod code is free and open source, but they generally suck. (You have to hack in the play store and whatnot)
Google is threatening to pull their agreement with Acer over this knockoff OS, which is just plain business sense. Why would they want to support Acer when Acer is trying to cut them out of a revenue stream? Acer could continue to make android devices, but they'd be considerably less desirable without the google services.
In a tabloid-esque move, /. posts a summary in which it treats an unilateral allegation as fact.
TFA at least makes it clear that Alibaba is making a unilateral claim and that neither Acer nor Google have commented on it. Furthermore, TFA makes it apparent that Alibaba is offering no letter, email, or voicemail as proof that Google told Acer to nix the deal.
Whereas the /. summary contains this line: "Acer has remained silent on the issue, but Alibaba reports that they received notification from Google, stating 'if the new product launch with Aliyun went ahead, Google would terminate Android product cooperation and related technical authorization with Acer.'" Which makes it sound as though Google made the threat to Alibaba directly, which isn't even what Alibaba is claiming.
Look, I'm not a big fan of Google. I think they very frequently ignore their own "don't be evil" advice. But I'm also not a fan very of sloppy editing and poor journalism. Come on /., put more effort in creating your summaries.
But don't worry. Google are still totally open.
IBM did the same thing with OS/2 and 16 bit MS programs. Windows won, OS/2 lost because everyone could still code for one and get both. Google dosnt really have anything to worry about if you watch history repeat itself.
They are just protecting themselves. That new OS can run Android apps, of course it would be cockblocked by Google. The same could be said if Linux supported windows applications right after installation.
Really gives fragmentation a whole new meaning don't it?
actual evidence.
Not the I expect much from the troll known as Timothy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sounds similar to RIM's new BlackBerry OS, that can run Android apps too, but not everything. Does Aliyun have the same restrictions?
So, this smidgeon of news doesn't establish anything.
They have a considerable investment in maintaining and augmenting Android, and BTW they did give it away free to the world. So if those people that got it for free want Google to spend REAL dollars supporting them, Google gets to ask for something in return. Like "don't fork this, create your own mess of of a highly complex O/S development project and make it our developers problem to sift out all the complaints that are fork-specific from the ones that aren't."
Android isn't your Daddy's script file library. It's big, complicated and expensive to adapt to all the latest hardware, which it runs on. This makes development a significant effort. If you want to compare this to our "purist" OpenSource methods, ask an iPaq enthusiast how long it took to get a newly released iPaq fully functional using GPE. I was always on my second LithIon battery by the time it worked well enough to use.
I'm going to get all the facts before I judge them. And then I'm still not using Bing :p
Nearly all of the author's articles are pro Apple or anti Google/Android, save for a few about cameras.
Google Play works just great with Cyanogenmod, and google didn't "decide".
Couldn't they do that and remove any android name reference, and release the code to still comply with the license?
There is only a single source for this. That source is a company that is looking for publicity for a product they are producing which they hope to have compete in a marketplace where the established players (Ios from Apple, Android from Googloe) have both a relatively polished product and position to control "mindshare". This makes me somewhat suspicious of the story.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Goes to show you what happens when you let a bunch of faggots run your phone company.
And no comments from anyone at Google and Acer...
It would seem a bit hypocritical to say "don't run against our ABI" after their line of defense was "ABIs are so generic" in the Java/Dalvik case.
It's the gentle splash of Google fanboi tears.
http://wiki.cyanogenmod.com/wiki/Latest_Version/Google_Apps
Google Apps contain the proprietary Google applications that come pre-installed with most android devices. Due to licensing restrictions, these apps cannot come pre-installed with CyanogenMod and must be installed separately. CyanogenMod does not require Google Apps to function properly, however, to take full advantage of the Android system, Google Apps are recommended.
--
For anyone not targeting modders that are willing to look this type of thing up, not being licensed to have the official Google apps bundled on what you sell to users is a serious drawback.
You all trust Alibaba, the guy who swindled from 40 thieves? What has become of us all ? "In Swindlers We Trust". PS: You can replace 'Alibaba', '40 thieves' and 'Swindlers' with whatever you want... Google... anything.
If it's true, whats the big deal? Acer is under no obligation to follow Google nor does Google have an obligation to help Acer if they direction doesn't help Google. It's perfectly acceptable for both companies to part ways. Now, not getting help from Google may make it very difficult for Acer since they are pretty much the authority to go to for help but it doesn't make it impossible as Acer obviously would have delve into the Android code and hopefully have decent programmers on their side.
Looks like a complete cock-and-bull story.
C'mon Slashdot editors. Take two minutes and check this stuff out first.
Proverbs 21:19
the point is, we can't even substantiate any of this - and no matter what they do, it's not "banishment from android". Relevance was lost when this somehow made it to the front page. Proof that if the firehose isnt' watched vigilantly enough bullshit non-articles make it through.
This is nothing but a sore loser whining. Google has no power over android; Acer could continue to use android with or without Google's support. In fact, if this were at all true, then Acer would have Google over a barrel due to antitrust laws. Alibaba is just making up excuses because they don't want to accept that Acer decided not to use their second-rate OS.
Sure, assuming you are just a member of the public with no contractual or similar limitations on your behavior, you can do pretty much (within the various F/OSS licenses applicable to the code) whatever you want with Android Open Source Project (AOSP) code.
OTOH, its not at all unlikely that the deal Acer has that involves "technical authorization", trademark licensing, etc., for Android -- not merely AOSP -- code also involves agreements by Acer not do some things it otherwise could do -- either with AOSP code on its own, or (as would be more relevant in this case) in terms of using Android-compatible third-party code, whether or not it is AOSP derived -- in exchange for all the special privileges with regard to Android that they get.
So its not at all hard to see how their flirtation with Alibaba's Aliyun OS may have conflicted with obligations they undertook as an Android -- not AOSP -- licensee, and resulted in a Google threat regarding the Android license.
Even if the Google threat story Alibaba is selling is true in broad outline (which there is nothing, AFAICT, other than Alibaba's claim itself to support), it still sounds like it is quite likely that it was Acer being reminded that they have to chose whether they want to be in the same relationship as the general public with respect to Android, or if they would prefer to keep the special privileges they've enjoined with regard to Android and pay the price that goes with that.
This will be fun. If this involved Apple, people would rage, torches would be lit and pitchforks would be sharpened. Since it's Google, I expect all kinds of apologists and claims that they're just defending their IP and this is ok.
Yeah. This will be fun.
WHY then are Barnes and Noble and Amazon using the android kernel WITHOUT THE ANDROID BRANDING?
It's the FUNCTIONALITY that makes android appealing.
While I'll not question the sincerity or truthfulness of the original post as others have beat me to that, I will question equating Alibaba to Amazon.
I consider Alibaba a slightly inferior peer to EBay which puts it way, way lower than Amazon in my book.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Apple isn't an Android licensee and doesn't have the special "technical authorizations" Acer has with regard to Android (as distinct from the public license offers attached to the Android Open Source Project, which isn't the same thing as officially-branded Android.)
So, if there is a conflict between what Amazon did (which is different, but in some ways parallel, to what is at issue with Acer) and the kind of Android licenses that companies like Acer have, it wouldn't matter, because Amazon doesn't have that kind of license, and so Google wouldn't threaten to pull it (since, you know, its hard to take something from someone that they never had in the first place.)
As much as we would like to believe there's some corporations who genuinely want what's best for innovation and technology, these mega companies will always do what they think is best for their stock. Google will only be "not evil" as long as it builds consumer confidence. The moment they can start crushing other start-ups without fear of losing customers is the moment their TM is a thing of history.
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
There's always dogpile... wait they use google too. Damnit, we're screwed. Google owns the whole effing internet. I guess I'll go play outside.
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
Google Play works GREAT on Barnes and Noble Nook flashed with Cyanogenmod
NOOK HAS NO ANDROID LICENSE
BB10/ Playbook OS are. Remember RIM is actually SELLING Android apps.
So I'm able to compare the Alibaba/Acer product with BlackBerry 10.
" A possible reason for Google's upset is that the Aliyun OS, which is not Android, can run Android apps as well as its own." From every person that has touched it or seen the code they all say it's a skinned android clone.
Yes you CAN legally do this, android is Open Source, so they can fork and create their own, but it is scumbaggy to do so.
Because Barnes and Noble and Amazon are trying to build their own ecosystem where they sit in the role Google has in the Android-branded ecosystem as the provider (and thus, profit-maker from) the default App/Book/etc. store.
Its the base functionality that makes Android appealing if, like B&N or Amazon, you are trying to compete with Google, Apple, etc., as a mobile App/Book/etc. store operator.
Its Google Apps -- and the support Google provides for them, and provides for you as a device manufacturer when you take a license that includes them -- that makes Android appealing if you are a device manufacturer that is more interested in making money selling hardware, and don't see selling digital content as your core competency.
Google provides Android code in a way that supports both -- the former through the Android Open Source Project, the latter through Android brand licensing. But you've got to choose whether you want to use Android via AOSP to compete with Google (which they allow, but aren't going to spend extra resources supporting you while you do) or via an Android license which actively promotes Google services (which they enthusiastically support, and will spend extra resources supporting you while you do.)
AOSP -- and the firms using it -- Google sees as good because they increase developer attractiveness of Android technology, because lots of people using non-Android AOSP devices are still going to use the web on those devices and earn Google revenue via advertising (on Google pages and elsewhere), and because Google, presumably, sees the possibility of making more money with a smaller share of a bigger Android-technology-based pie.
But Android licensees provide Google with bigger advantages and a more direct route to revenue, and get, naturally, more direct support.
No one can be 'banished' from Android. You can take open source Android, modify it, set up your own app store, and make money off it without paying a cent to Google (as Barnes & Noble and Amazon have done, among others).
Google may have told Acer that they can't be part of the Google Android program, which involves licensing the Google Play Store and the Google closed source apps (Gmail, Maps, Chrome, Talk, Google+ etc.), and at the same time tie up with Alibaba on an Android clone OS that runs Android apps. They *may* have, it's pure speculation, though I really cannot see why they would. Even if they have, it's hardly evil. Google give away the damn OS, and Amazon are able to use it and make millions off it without paying Google anything. Call me when Microsoft or Apple do anything similar.
GAPPS runs GREAT on Barnes and Noble Nook WITH NO ANDROID LICENSE
The problem is that without "special treatment", a vendor can't (legally) sell devices that can access the large selection of applications that are exclusive to Google Play Store. Chase Bank's check deposit application is among them.
When Microsoft tells vendors "you can't ship anything but Windows on your computers"...
It's considered BAD
But when google says EXACTLY THE SAME THING
Somehow it's OKAY
"google gives tech support to contract holders" SO DOES MICROSOFT!
That's like saying a pirate copy of Windows just works because Microsoft didn't "decide" you shouldn't get it.
It's illegal for CM to bundle Google Play. That's why they don't provide it and you have to get it from somewhere else as an extra step after installing a CM ROM. Those sites are technically violating Google's copyright by distributing the gapps files.
This is great.....everyone can finally see what kind of company Google is, keep buying Android phones people and support this stealing company. If this was Apple doing it the story would be posted all over, so far I have only seen it here on slashdot.
Being Evil is suing a fruit market in Poland because it can be confused with your company that makes phones. Not being evil is reminding your partner that you just gave them exclusive rights to a Google only product and that deal might have rules about other partners. You dont know what the contract said or if the allegiations are true, but this is Slashdot and half of you cant read, comprehend what you read, or not go on a witch hunter when your doritos bag is empty instead of screaming up stairs to your mom.
Wow that's just... just...
Khajiit has no words for this.
This will cost me karma... but what is up with the double standards. I have seen more questionable "news" articles about Apple where the cry about "proof" or "single source" aren't that loud. Talking about hypocrisy ! Or are most people that naive that when a company has a "don't do evil" tagline, that it certainly must be true ?
If I read the original Reuter article, it makes perfectly sense why they would do that and if I see some of reuters own experience with related events, somethings is stinking. Alibaba seems to be one of china biggest e-commerce site. If it can leverage its popularity to push its own operating system on the market, that is very bad for Google. The chinese market are a lot of people to track and create personalized advertisements for. And Acer is a relative small player that can pushed a lot easier then the big names like Samsung, etc. So while I want to wait the reaction of Google and Acer, it seems a plausible scenario.
And Google wants to have a piece of the Chinese cake and go as far as to "do (necessarily sic) evil" for it... . So please spare me "the Google is holier then the pope" attitude. It's an advertisement company with shareholders and business targets, it isn't a fricking humanitarian movement. On the end of the line it is the same as every other company, all about the money.
It is already well established that China will and are stealing any IP they can.
This is simply another example.
And Google are saying a simple thing to Acer:
If you want to use our tech, for free, don't play these games with us.
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
Unlike Android components that are part of AOSP, Google Play Store is not Apache licensed.
Or Acer could just go to Amazon and ask to pre-install the latter's apps
And everybody whose bank makes its check deposit application available only through Google Play Store should just switch banks, right?
Android is still apache licensed.
Google Play Store is not, and people who buy an Android phone with no access to Play Store-exclusive applications are going to be sorely disappointed.
At least in the case of CM, people do tend to flash gapps.
Acer, as a commercial company, can't very well induce its users to pirate the gapps. MGM v. Grokster.
Amazon offers another store
Which I have installed on my Archos 43. However, my bank's check deposit application isn't in Amazon Appstore; it's exclusive to Google Play Store.
My son's Kyros is a particularly cheap tablet you can't install Google Play on. It's made by Coby. It comes with it's own app store called "GetJar" and I also was able to put FDroid on it, with varying results for ability to run apps.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Well, no, they don't _have_ to. They may choose to. For example, there's this little shop that sells Android tablets with their own store. Or here's a third party appstore that OEMs may choose to license and integrate. Then there's Opera's appstore, GetJar...
Amazon Appstore and SlideME Marketplace don't help if banks decline to release their banking applications on those stores.
I know very, very few people who actually use a smartphone app from their bank.
One reason that someone might use a bank's smartphone app is that he lives nowhere near any of the bank's ATMs. Unlike the bank's web site, the app allows the user to deposit a personal or payroll check by using the device's camera to take a picture of the front and back of a check. Or should everyone in such a situation send deposits through the mail?
maybe part of the agreement between Google and those who have an "agreement" means that they benefit from pre-release builds and direct line technical support. Has nothing to do with them using the released/posted source but has everything to do with helping their time to market with the latest. If you have to start with the final release version, you'll be behind all your competitors who have already been working with pre-release code.
""
Using their Smartphone OS monopoly to prevent Apple from getting the iPhone into the market?
Cyanogenmod *was* violating copyright when it included the proprietary Google binaries (hence the threat of a lawsuit).
Cyanogenmod *now* ships without those proprietary Google binaries, but provides links to locations where those Google binaries can be downloaded by users acting on their own wishes.
However, in our modern world, merely providing LINKS to data stored and served by other people can be regarded as a crime (hence the criminalization of The Pirate Bay, which only offered information about torrents)!
I assume that the Google binaries are not offered for direct download by end-users, but must only be distributed in packages approved by Google. Or, if Google *does* allow those binaries to be downloaded directly by end-users, I'm guessing the terms of use of their copyrighted product is that the binaries only be used with Google-approved devices. If both of these assumptions are false, then ignore the remainder of this comment!
Although I personally think criminalizing actions that are one or more steps *before* actions which *actually* cause damages (or are very likely to cause damages) is dangerous -- because of the extreme chance that widespread punishments of "pre-crime" might have an overall cost to society that is far greater than the harm of the anticipated crimes (had they been carried out) -- I think the common person, were they to consider whether or not LINKS ALONE constituted encouraging and enabling subsequent action, would agree that it makes sense to criminalize the act of providing links. The same logic is used to support criminalizing possessing, selling, or buying drugs; because the very likely consequence is that someone will consume those drugs, which itself is illegal. I'm not defending the laws, or the "pre-crime" laws in particular. I'm only speculating that a civil lawsuit, or criminal case, might succeed against the developers or distributors of Cyanogenmod.
A backdoor about the size of an airplane hangar.
The fact that your application is not available in the Amazon appstore is not Amazon's fault, or Google's. It's your bank.
And if Acer wants to drop Google Play Store while continuing to make its products useful to people who use their phones to bank online, it needs to negotiate with the major banks to provide their applications on Amazon Appstore. As of today, Acer has not done this.
Antitrust rules aren't about ethical principle, they are about the pragmatic effects of leveraging overwhelming market power on the choices on which the practical benefits of free markets depend. The actions prohibited by antitrust regulations are, in general, mala prohibita rather than mala in se.
Oh yes, that's a dupe refried and served hot.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.