Google Pressured Acer/Alibaba Because of Android Compatibility Issues

An anonymous reader writes "On Thursday we discussed news that Google pressured Acer and Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba to cancel the launch of a phone running the Aliyun OS. Google has now addressed the issue, speaking out on the importance of compatibility for Android devices. Andy Rubin, who runs Android development at Google, said Aliyun was a non-compatible version of Android, which weakens the ecosystem. He pointed out that the Open Handset Alliance provides all the tools necessary to make it compatible. An Alibaba exec fired back, saying, 'Aliyun OS is not part of the Android ecosystem so of course Aliyun OS is not and does not have to be compatible with Android. It is ironic that a company that talks freely about openness is espousing a closed ecosystem.'"

Comments

When Microsoft did it, it was evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

case closed.

Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil.

[binarylarry]

This is all due to Android's openness.

Basically this company wants to be part of the Android group, but at the same time, build a competitor to Google's interests in the Android platform... using a forked version of Android. So Google is basically saying "if you want to be dicks and go against our interests, we're going to kick you out of our club."

It should be noted that it won't affect Alibaba or Asus's ability to use the Android codebase, just Google won't be working with them in the future.

Seems fair enough to me.

Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil.

[recoiledsnake]

What Microsoft did was refuse to sell Windows to OEMs

Wrong, Microsoft did not do that. They got into trouble for a similar thing that Google is doing now(though Android is not a monopoly so it's a different legal situation here). Microsoft withheld OEM incentives(which included discounts, advertising money etc.) from the OEMs that didn't toe their line. Google is withholding incentives like early code access(and perhaps will increase the price for or remove access to the Android app store, Google apps on the device which are neither free nor Free). Good luck with competition with the other Android OEMs if that happens, which is why Acer backtracker REAL quick and even canceled a scheduled launch event which companies do only in cases of dire need.

I don't see any difference with the Microsoft situation except these three

1. Android doesn't have a monopoly (although it's 67% marketshare in the market and since Acer can't get a iOS license which is the other 22% of the market, it's effectively a monopoly as far as Acer's options to get any revenue are concerned).

2. Android is "open", so they could probably go the Amazon route, fork Android, get AOSP code super late when competitors have already released devices with the latest and greatest OS and features, build an app store from scratch, get hundreds of thousands of developers to submit apps, develop in house replacements for Google Maps, GMail, Currents, etc. etc. etc. Or maybe try to hook up with Amazon and get access to the store. But again, good luck with competing with Samsung, HTC, Motorola, LG, Sony given these constraints.

Anyway this is pretty ironic coming from Google, given the same Andy Rubin's tweet about being open:

https://twitter.com/bttp/statuses/27864903610

http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/19/andy-rubin-twitter/

Well would you look at that. Earlier today, Apple CEO Steve Jobs went on a bit of a tirade against Google and Android in particular. And you know that couldn’t have made Android chief Andy Rubin too happy. But how was he going to respond? Well, he decided to awaken his dormant Twitter account and send his first tweet tonight. And sure enough, it’s clearly (but subtly) in response to Jobs.

Without further ado, here is Andy Rubin’s first tweet:

the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”

For those keeping score at home, that’s Rubin using some geeked-out lingo to explain exactly what open is to Steve Jobs. In other words: Android.

Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil.

[cbhacking]

How exactly do you propose that Google kick Amazon out of the Open Handset Allienace when Amazon is not, never has been, and is not trying to be a member of the OHA? Your post is ludicrous.

It should be noted that it won't affect Alibaba or Asus's ability to use the Android codebase, just Google won't be working with them in the future.

Amazon has been doing this from the beginning; using the Android codebase as a starting point and releasing a product using their derived version of Android, without any Google support or any of the otehr advantages that OHA members get. They're doing fine, too... but they aren't making a smartphone.

inb4 idiots with mod points mod partent up to 5

[Anonymous Coward]

Segalovich suggested Google was guilty of foul play with its Chrome browser, which he said made it difficult for users to choose rival search engines, including Yahoo, Bing and Yandex, over its own market-leading product.

LOL. Click Menu -> Settings and then choose your favourite search from a dropbox.

"You cannot [send any code] to Android, it's semi-open source. You cannot send anything, just see and watch [how the code is changed by Google] If you download an application it may not work properly if it's not Android marketplace.

LOL

At least choose better sources for your FUD, FFS.

They only open it because they used Linux as the base

Only kernel has to be open. Anything else is open under APL

You don't even get to give your users access to Google Play so that they could buy and download apps and games. No, you don't get any of that. It's Google's way or Amazon, SlideMe, GetJar, Opera Apps, ...

Good troll, mate! Please, do go on giving Android haters reputation of ignorant FUDders.

Google's side

[Monoman]

As I understand it Google's side of the story is they said something because Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance. Amazon is not a member of the AHA therefore Google hasn't said a thing to them.

Read into it yourself YMMV.

Is this what Microsoft did in the 90s?

[Michalson]

In the 90s Microsoft was accused of and then convicted of monopoly behavoir against OEMs to push OS/2 (and other PC OSs) out of the market in favor of Windows.

Back then Microsoft provided 3 choices for OEMs:

• 1. Don't play with Microsoft at all (sell PCs with OS/2 or other OS, operate as a niche dealer)
• 2. Play with Microsoft but without a club membership (buy Windows licences at full price, sell however they want)
• 3. Join Microsoft's club (get discounted licences but pay them on a basis of one licence per computer regardless of actual configuration)

Microsoft argued that this was not anti-competitive; they claimed the discount simply represented Microsoft not having to keep track of individual licences and that OEMs where free to buy licences individually instead. They lost that argument because it was found that since Windows already had a majority market share (for the time being) an OEM had to load Windows on a majority of their systems to satisfy consumers. Because of the pricing scheme OEMs could not be competitive with other OEMs if they took option 2, forcing them into 3 where Microsoft's terms made it uncompetitive to sell PCs with another operating systems. So Microsoft was convicted under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Let's look at Google and its club the Open Handset Alliance (OHA):

• 1. Don't use any official Android distributions (operate as a niche/self-supported market, ie. Amazon)
• 2. Use any combination of Android and forked android-derived distributions, but can't join the OHA
• 3. Join the OHA and use only an official Google Android derived OS

The official Android distribution can be seen as something wanted by the majority of customers (looking for a non-Apple/Microsoft or a inexpensive phone) at this time (unless you have something else big enough to get people to come to you, like Amazon) so most Android/android OEMs would be giving up the majority of their customers if they dumped official Android entirely; that removes option 1. Much like the licence discount a membership in the OHA represents a major competitive advantage - the OEMs are already way behind in keeping official Android up to date in their design and production pipelines even with that inside track and help from Google. An OEM on its own trying to make an official Android device is thus at a large disadvantage against OEMs that are part of the OHA. This makes option 2 uncompetitive, forcing any serious OEM into option 3. Option 3 goes even farther then Microsoft in the 90s - it doesn't just apply a tax, it outright bans the alternative.

So does the same 90s logic applied by the court - that regardless of Microsoft/Google's excuse for the 3 choices it isn't really a choice at all, and that the only viable choice blocks competition - still apply today?

Hmm...

[Blic]

What's not clear to me is how the Alibaba handset is positioned. Google is claiming it's an Android fork that will fragment the ecosystem, and Alibaba seems to be claiming it's not part of the ecosystem. Is Alibaba being disingenuous here?

While everyone's Microsoft analogies sound good, they don't really work - because if they were true Google would have kicked Acer out of the OHA for making a Windows phone...

Now if Acer and Alibaba were trying to position their device as an Android phone, and it broke the ecosystem in many ways I could understand Google's behavior. But if it's more of an Amazon thing and Alibaba doesn't want or need anything from Google, then Google really does come off as kind of an asshole by punishing Acer's other business which does comply. That's a classic monopolistic strategy.

In any I guess we all know there's a difference between being truly "Open" and just making the source code available...

Re:It's not part of the Android ecosystem yet

[stephanruby]

And if Aliyun fails to run an Android application, customers will see Aliyun as bad, and the platform will not prosper. Problem solved.

And yet, that's not how people saw Java ME when they couldn't run downloaded Java ME applications on their device. In fact, if there is one distinguishing factor with Java ME, it's that one, it's the mandated compatibility test suite among different device manufacturers and carriers.

Why does Google have to play nanny?

Google is not playing nanny. Google is just watching out who it's partnering with. Acer and Alibaba are free to do what they want. It's not like Google is going to sue them anyhow. Why should Google be forced to provide technical assistance to a competing fork of theirs?

Re:Android incompatibility with Java

[binarylarry]

those people were also laughed out of court and have to pay Google's legal costs.