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."
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
I'm not usually so keen to call upon these - but a user with only two posts, with a seemingly Linux-friendly nick, not a subscriber apparently but still manages two posts within a minute of the story being released, another one of those recommending Bing of all things... Just doesn't seem quite genuine to me. Not that I disagree with this being dickish, if true.
Anyone want to suggest any other search engines?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=search+engines
The entire mobile phone ecosystem is evil, starting with the carriers.
Yeah, how exactly would google be cutting Acer off? Android is open source.
I suppose they might cut off support services, if Acer has some kind of contract in place for that.
It sounds like Acer was backing out of a deal with Alibaba and it was easier to say "Can't help you bro, Google is threatening to cut me off."
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
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.
This just establishes the fact that Google is not necessarily evil.
FTFY
Aliyun (alien?) is clearly written in code lifted from Android without Google's permission. While Android sources are available, that doesn't mean you can just take the source, change it as you see fit and sell it as your own. Pretty shoddy of Acer.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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?
Yes, AOSP is still apache licensed.
Acer can feel free to use it, just no support from Google. Assuming this is true at all.
Truth is, as most of the code on android is apache licenced or GPL (as the kernel) there is no need to ask google's permission to make anything with it. The only parts of the operating system that are under a non-permissive licence that can be considered a showstoper would be the "brand" apps, as gmail, youtube and the google play store.
I was merely wondering how Androidy Alyun is going to turn out to be.
Google aren't, as far as I know, bullying RIMs OEMs, so I wondered how much more of a threat Aliyun is to them.
Incorrect. Android is NOT open source. Android is a commercially licensed mobile OS. Google does however provide the same source code under an open-source license called the Android Open Source Project, or AOSP.
The difference between the two are very minor code-wise, but commercial access wise, they're much bigger.
First, the commercially available Android is for partners only - while Google traditionally works with a partner to release a flagship phone with the latest OS, the other partners often have early access to the new code prior to Google releasing it on AOSP. (And as we saw with Honeycomb, Google can prevent partners from releasing the code to AOSP. Google has also applied source code distribution restrictions on who may access Honeycomb source under what conditions).
Second, and more importantly, being a partner also allows you to license the Google Apps. So if you wanted the Play store, the only way you can include it in your image would be to be a commercially licensed partner. Otherwise you would have to release it without the Google Apps, and your users will have to manually install the Play store marketplace themselves (like what you do with Cyanogen).
Doing this means that Acer's tablets and phones would be like the random Chinese tablets and phones running AOSP - sure they run Android, but that's about it - you'd have to find and install the marketplace yourself (not sure if it requires root?).
Google Play works just great with Cyanogenmod, and google didn't "decide".
Oh, look:
1) Brand new user.
2) Posts within the same minute the story appears.
3) Post has more text in it than can be typed in one minute.
4) Is full of irrational Google hate.
Yep folks, the irrational Google hater is back. From the tone of the posts, I'm not even sure anymore that he is a paid shill (they tend to be a bit more even keeled and dispassionate), and instead think that someone has an obsession with Google and his panties in a wad over the fact that no one else agrees with his arguments.
Next, I expect a petulant crap flood of GNAA posts and other AC shenanigans.
These sounds are made by users.
No, they're made by a single, obsessive and whiny nutbag. Go away.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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
Actually yes they can as long as they don't remove copyrights from the source or misuse Google's trademarks. Why would they need Google's permission to use and sell Apache v2 code when the license carries no such restriction?
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.
RIM's new OS is not Android BUT IT CAN RUN Android apps http://developer.blackberry.com/android/
That's why I find it an interesting comparison
Whoosh? (I was hoping you're being sarcastic)
Of course you can "take the source, change it as you see fit and sell it as your own" (your own product, not the source files) as long as you meet the obligations of the license (which would boil down to GPL for most of it). There is no need to italicize the word "sell" either, because free software licenses don't require products based on the source code to be distributed for zero cost.
There is nothing that says you have to meet the obligation of the license right away either, because until you actually distribute your product, you're not even in violation. After such time the bare minimum (assuming GPL) would be to honour written requests to have the source code made available. Even that doesn't have to be for zero cost.
That's an evil move of Microsoft proportions, for Google to threaten Acer like that. It's just like what Microsoft did to IBM over OS/2.
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.
Added to the list
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They are not banning Acer from anything. You have completely misunderstood. They are terminating the privilaged cooperation they give Acer. Why should Google spend extra money an resources on assisting Asus, when the intention is that they use that assistence to build better Android products, not build competing products. This just puts Acer on the same footing as any other Joe Smo. It doesn't prevent them from doing anything they do now. Essentially Google recognized that Acer was leveraging Google's assistance, not to help build android products, but to help build competing android products. There is no lockout here.
You must live a pretty sheltered live in a closet to think that this is what "evil" is. You want to talk in concrete terms about vendor lock-in, greed, proprietary vs. open, then I'll listen. You start throwing around words like "evil" in this context then you just look like a drama queen.
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.
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.)
BB10/ Playbook OS are. Remember RIM is actually SELLING Android apps.
So I'm able to compare the Alibaba/Acer product with BlackBerry 10.
What he said is factually correct. The trademarked "Android" is not Open Source. It is provided on a contractual basis. AOSP is Open Source under the Apache license.
This is how Honeycomb AKA Android 3.0 was never released Open Source. It is also why there is no Cynogenmod 8, as that number would have been for Honeycomb.
It's not necessarily irrational, or hatred for that matter. Although either of those are possible, it's more likely profitable. Between Microsoft, Apple, and FaceBook, I'm fairly sure there's no shortage of money for shill factories to bash Google. FaceBook was caught before, and I can't imagine that would stop such an honourable company from trying again. The other two are at least as likely to do the same.
It's a little like people who advocate for a punctuation mark to denote sarcasm. If you can't detect sarcasm when you see it, you don't really deserve to enjoy it.
More Twoson than Cupertino
This just establishes the fact that Google is not necessarily evil.
FTFY
Aliyun (alien?) is clearly written in code lifted from Android without Google's permission. While Android sources are available, that doesn't mean you can just take the source, change it as you see fit and sell it as your own. Pretty shoddy of Acer.
What I don't understand is how Aliyun can even sell it. Not the mechanism by which they get money in exchange for some code, but how anyone would willingly pay these people for something they can get for free. What exactly is Aliyun adding to the Android base that isn't already there?
More Twoson than Cupertino
He's a shill. I am not.
I agree 100% with the sentiments that he expressed. Read Google's ToS. Look at the fines for privacy invasion that Google has. Yes, fine apps. Yes, uses them to rape your privacy in ways you can't imagine.
Will Alibaba's Aliyun do this? Who knows. But to believe Google isn't getting as evil as its competition is to be incredibly naive.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
You sure they're shills and not just one or two trolls who really know how to get under slashdotters' skins?
Paying someone to try to improve MS' image on slashdot seems like a really boneheaded move... which would not be surprising coming from MS...
Alright, you've convinced me that they're probably professionals and not basement dwellers. Still, shouldn't we be cheering them on for taking money from MS and giving them back very little in return?
"seemingly Linux-friendly nick"
Not at all, since a genuine Linux geek wouldn't couple Debian and Ubuntu as a nick. Debian folks wouldn't advertise for Ubuntu, and Ubuntu users usually know little about Debian.
It sounds like barely thought-out bullshit from a shill.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
No comments from Google Tokyo or Acer Taiwan. Google (Mountain View) could make a statement about it soon enough. Given the timing of this, I'm guessing Google HQ has not had time to analyze what happened yet.
Though, Acer not commenting isn't unusual - Google could've told them to not mention anything about it publicly, or else they'll lose it as well. After all, what happens inside the OHA is probably covered by many NDAs (like Honeycomb source code).
Truth is, as most of the code on android is apache licenced or GPL (as the kernel) there is no need to ask google's permission to make anything with it.
Except for two things, some OEMs get advanced access to the code base before it's released to the general public and some OEMs get special access to the core Android developers if they can't get something to work on their own.
This is probably one of the reasons the two other Chinese government-sponsored forks of Android are still stuck at Android 1.6 and Android 2.3. It actually takes time to vet a new release of Android for NSA backdoors and security holes, and introducing your own backdoors into it. And I'm willing to bet that Chinese consumers are as impatient when it comes to getting new releases as American consumers are, many probably will just root their devices, or pay someone to root their device, and just install their own ROMS.
That's an evil move of Microsoft proportions, for Google to threaten Acer like that. It's just like what Microsoft did to IBM over OS/2.
Are we sure this actually happened? It seems rather unlikely that Googlers could be that stupid. Clearly an official response from Google is called for, sooner rather than later, and regardless of whether the report is accurate.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Look at the volume of responses from angry /.ers frothing at the mouth at these kinds of comments, if you wanted to troll /. that certainly seems to be the best way to do it because there's no shortage of people who would love to believe you're serious (your list and all the angry cries of 'shill' are proof of that).
For some reason there are some people who just can't leave these troll comments alone, just let it be moderated down so we don't have to see it instead of contributing to its visibility. Stop feeding the trolls, it's that simple.