Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
It advertises that it runs Android applications?? That seems a little disingenuous as well.
DevRT. The name was a give away. 1 comment and it's trolling.
Watch those corners
For me this clearly looks like Microsoftesque move by Google.
At the same time we have honest companies like Microsoft who actually adjust to different markets and continue providing services even if they aren't the number #1. Just look at Bing - Microsoft doesn't make a huge hullabaloo about it all the time, no, they continue improving it and providing it to users. Google cries like a baby when it isn't number #1 somewhere.
Could you fucking shills at least remain consistent?
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.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
If you want to create your own OS, no one is stopping you. If you want to use android, you have to agree to the terms of the license.
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.
Apparently the OS of this phone is a flavor of Android that runs Android apps. What happens if it runs them poorly? An uninformed customer starts bashing Acer, and Google(because it's a smartphone so it must be Google) China is a big market, so there's no doubt word would spread and just like that Android loses to Apple clones in what is possibly the biggest market.
There are plenty of manufacturers that produce Android devices without Google's blessing. Archos is one that im familiar with. I had a handheld much like an ipod touch. It came with android 2.1 or something like that and it didnt have the Market app. Instead Archos had a app store. By now the thing could probably use the Amazon app store or any one of them.
Isn't Acer one of the companies destined to design one of Google's new flagship devices? Perhaps thats why they've been given such harsh treatment
He's perfectly consistent. He copied/pasted the same exact text twice.
Please don't be evil.
It's great that you invented Android. You also must have gotten a great payoff when Google bought Android. That's enough, isn't it?
You cleverly screwed Sun out of a few millions of dollars licensing fees, which contributed to its downfall.
Now your megalomania is leading you to beat up on an Android vendor that merely wants to experiment with an Android variant?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
There's that word again. These "walled gardens" are more akin to zoos than true ecosystems -- all they offer is the convenience of finding the different flora and fauna together in one spot, with the restriction being how you interact with them. Some people could benefit from more direct interaction; still many others would be eaten by lions if given a chance.
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.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
No, what weakens the ecosystem are the Open Handset Alliance members who promise to keep their phones up to date, then renege.
I bought an Xperia Pro in 2011 because Sony announced they'd be getting Android 4. It's currently running Android 2.3, released in 2010, because Sony have completely cocked up the rollout. The rollout started back in May, then mysteriously stopped. It might have something to do with it being so buggy it's unusable (hardcoded to AZERTY keyboards, even if you've got a QWERTY keyboard), but we have no way of knowing because Sony won't talk. They announced it was being rolled out a second time at the beginning of August, but there's no evidence of that in their shitty update software. Customer support stonewall, just saying that the rollout is ongoing. This isn't even for the latest version of Android, it's for last year's version.
This is what's damaging the ecosystem. iOS developers can happily target iOS 5+, released a year ago, and get the vast majority of users (more than 80%). If you targeted the year old Android 4+, you'd only be getting about 22% of users.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Oracle was suing Google over patents and copyright infringement.
Google was never a part of the Oracle PartnerNetwork, so Oracle could not kick them out.
This is not like Oracle suing Google at all, in any way.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Well, if we're going to play Microsoft analogies, you could say that Alibaba is attempting to play "embrace and extingush". They wan to take advantage of the Android ecosystem while channeling users onto their proprietary platform.
In any case, You haven't established the validity of your analogy. What Microsoft did was refuse to sell Windows to OEMs who also offered competitive products like DR-DOS. Plenty of vendors offer Android competitors on their phones. What Google is doing is withholding cooperation from a company that is effectively using Android as the basis for a competitive product. The competitive product would be bootstrapped by having access to Android apps while steering customers toward apps that run exclusively on the network operator's service.
Where have we seen that carrier lock-in strategy before? Everywhere. That was the world of smartphone apps before iPhone, and having developed such apps before iPhone I can tell you it sucked for everyone except the carrier and handset maker.
IIRC Android is licensed under Apache, so Google can't "cut off" Alibaba from Android. Alibaba can continue to offer Android devices, even develop non-compatible Android derivatives, but they won't get help from Google. No technical assistance, no advance notice of plans, no labeling their products as "android" phones, no offering on-line access to the Android app store (although users could still side-load). Is that evil? Maybe, maybe not.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Like dogs fighting over the scraps below the table.
They should be fighting for what is on TOP.
So remind me how Google make an incompatible implementation of Java?
Android uses the Java language and some Java core libraries, but the implementation is neither a complete implementation of Java SE (e.g. no AWT or Swing compatibility) nor of Java ME (e.g. no MIDlet compatibility), and it uses Dalvik bytecode instead of JVM bytecode.
They build an open source operating system. When they refuse to release Honeycomb, people start claiming they're going back on the open source commitment. They release ICS and JB source code less than a week after the official announcement. They literally give Android away for free - http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429
Yet they get far more criticism than Microsoft and Apple running increasingly closed ecosystems. They get blamed for Android fragmentation. Now, when they decide to do something about fragmentation, they get blamed again. It's pretty simple isn't it, you join OHA and you maintain compatibility with Android. Or you don't, like Amazon, and take the source code for free and whatever the hell you want with it. Is that really so onerous for Acer?
When Android OEMs get sued with crap patents, Google gets blamed. Even when it's Samsung, a far bigger company who is making the majority of profits off Android (Google isn't making nearly as much), Google is somehow supposed to show up and save the day for them. When Google registers patents of their own, every time there's a Slashdot story about the pot calling the kettle black although Google have NEVER used patents to sue anyone except in retaliation, not their search patents, not their Hadoop, Mapreduce, etc. patents.
If you're an Android device used, you should be glad Google is doing this. The last thing we need is another Amazon. Try playing with a Kindle Fire - Amazon completely skinned Amazon and made it incompatible with normal Android apps. I have tried putting many in through apks, most install but almost none work properly. Despite coming with a powerful dual core processor, the devices are terribly slow and laggy. The browser is awful compared to Chrome or Safari on mobile devices. They could have gone with a completely skinned version of compatible Android, with their own skin but retain compatibility with apps. Instead, we get different versions of Android apps for the Kindle Fire. I am not sure this even works in Amazon's favour, they could still have sold all the content and made proper tablets offering real tablet functionality, not glorified content consumption devices with terribly proprietary software.
Here's the kicker:
You don't have to pay Google a cent to retain Android compatibility. Amazon could do exactly what they are doing now: run their own app store instead of using Google Play, use Nokia maps, use Bing as the default search engine, put their own browser in that tracks all websites you visit. Google's own Motorola branded handset, the RAZR M ships with the Amazon app store installed. I don't know why Google let this happen, it makes no business sense. But it's good for us consumers, you don't even have to be tied to the Google Play store.
It's Google's way or Amazon, SlideMe, GetJar, Opera Apps
Good luck convincing your bank to offer its application on Amazon or SlideME. I own an Archos 43 Internet Tablet, which didn't come with what was then called Android Market. I called a representative of Chase Bank and asked how to get Chase Quick Deposit working, and I was told that there were no plans to support my device. Nor were there plans to support a PC's flatbed scanner instead of a smartphone's rear camera.
Google Play Store's license is not the Apache license, and at least one major bank that I've contacted has expressed its lack of plans to make its check deposit application available anywhere but Google Play Store
Archos is one that im familiar with. I had a handheld much like an ipod touch. It came with android 2.1 or something like that and it didnt have the Market app. Instead Archos had a app store. By now the thing could probably use the Amazon app store or any one of them.
I too have an Archos 43, which was Android's closest thing to an iPod touch until Samsung introduced the Galaxy Player. But just try to find certain apps, such as Chase Bank's check deposit app, on AppsLib, Amazon, or SlideME. Acer would have to convince each application publisher to make its applications available through a channel other than Google Play Store, or it would risk losing customers who rely on such apps to Acer's competitors who toe the google line.
What? Apple's never released an open source OS and had it forked. Seriously, Apple suing the entire mobile world over rounded corners has nothing to do with this. What's going on here is very simple. Google has no problem with an independent company using the open source Android to make their own fork. Amazon and numerous other companies have done it without so much as a complaint from Google. What's not fine is for members of the Open Handset Alliance to support Android forks, because compatibility is part of the stated mission of the OHA. If Acer wants to build devices using an Android fork, then they would have to leave the OHA.
It also doesn't advertise that it's a Java SE technology.
It advertises that it uses the Java language, and Oracle tried to argue that various copyrights and patents associated with the Java language were not available for licensing except in connection with a complete implementation of Java SE technology.
OP talks about license in relevance to Android - not Google Play Store.
I wonder if Google will do this to Amazon who is pursuing a similiar (build another platform from Android) strategy.
Well, it would be fine for Microsoft to make Windows code open and free for anybody to use however they want, but to make it a condition of a license to sell products with Windows branding that the entity with such a license not also sell product that isn't compatible with Windows that advertises itself as running Windows software.
Surrendering what amounts to nominative fair use rights (which, absent any contractual limitation, everyone has) with regard for the trademark in order to get the right to use the trademark more directly to brand some of your products (which, without the license, no one but the trademark holder has) is fairly common, and is all this is.
I think it would be more than "fine", but actually strongly preferrable to the status quo.
The hypothetical you offer, OTOH, isn't actually analogous to what Google is doing here.
The "Don't Be Evil" way would be to simply not support Alibaba; not cut off Asus. Maybe "Don't Be Evil" has some small print I don't know about though. God knows I never read those damn agreements.
Amazon isn't in the club (OHA), so it cannot be kicked out.
Android as it is most commonly marketed to end users is Android with Gapps, not AOSP. Do most customers (other than hardcore geeks) buy Android devices for the apps that are included with AOSP, or do they buy Android devices for the apps that are available through Google Play Store?
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.
This space for rent.
Well, if we're going to play Microsoft analogies, you could say that Alibaba is attempting to play "embrace and extingush".
No, if they were playing the embrace and extinguish game then they would need to call their OS Android. If they are merely forking the code and calling it by another name (Aliyun OS) then it is more like LibreOffice vs OpenOffice.org.
What Microsoft did was refuse to sell Windows to OEMs who also offered competitive products like DR-DOS.
No, Microsoft sold Windows to OEMs at substantial discounts if they exclusively used the OS. They did not refuse to sell to them at all.
Google have described Aliyun as "an incomplete version of Android". This is the same argument levelled against Google when they used Java technology in Android. In that case Google also didn't attempt to call their product Java, and in my opinion this should mean that what Google did was perfectly acceptable. The same defense applies to Alibaba's OS too.
It seems quite reasonable for Google to want to distance themselves from Aliyun OS, but is it reasonable for them to then say that Acer is also cut off from Google for any Android branded smartphone too? That is an attempt to bully an OEM into only using Android exclusively. That is even worse than what Microsoft did, and it sucks.
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.
Lots of android manufacturers also developed Windows phones, often on nearly identical hardware. Yet they remain in the OHA.
There's no reason you can't offer the same device on both sides of the fork and be a good member in both camps.
Rubin needs to forget about the other branch of the fork and get over himself.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
So, basically, they are just stealing the concept and backbone of Android and molding it into their own competing product...
And this surprises anyone coming from China...how? Is it really that surprising from the plagiarism capital of the world?
China's economy is based in large part on copying and reselling other entities' IP for a lot less with far less quality in the physical products offered. The words "cheap plastic Chinese knockoff" come to mind.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Nice summary. It sounds like Google is behaving reasonably, but they let Asus catch them flatfooted PRwise.
I do wish that they'd address the fragmentation issue with the same vigor.
Actually Andy Rubin is right. The issue is that you can not compile Google's own applications.
Wikipedia describes the OS as open source. I tried to look it up, but my knowledge of any language other than English is virtually non-existent. You would need to ask a native speaker who owns the phone to tell for sure.
Back then Microsoft provided 3 choices for OEMs:
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):
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?
It can be under the Apache license.
In any case IIRC the point of the fork is to funnel users to their web based apps, so even if the fork is released open source the users are still locked in.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Acer, not Asus. Asus are the good guys.
You appear correct. It appears the lack of results is still Chase's fault: Amazon was filtering it out of my search results on both devices on Chase's behalf. I'm stumped as to why I'm getting this result from the page you linked:
Compatibility with your devices
(No) asus Nexus 7 2
(No) archos A43
The Archos has a rear facing camera. The Nexus 7 has a front facing camera. Neither is supported. At this point, my cynical guess is that Chase only wants to target customers who are rich enough to be paying $500 or more per year for smartphone service. Should I switch from Chase over this?
It would be nice if you linked or gave more info on what youre referring to-- are you talking about the old antitrust IE stuff, or something with Windows Phone?
So that means "Open" in this case is a loaded term and there is a scale of openness which Andy exploited to create the illusion of being open.
Forget about Google apps and the app store for a second.
Is Android as open as Firefox or Linux? No, development is done strictly behind closed doors, there is no way for anyone to submit patches or additional code and Google hasn't merged a single line of non-Google employee code. Where's the Android-dev mailing list?
There are not even beta releases of the Android versions so that smaller manufacturers and CyanogenMod can know what's coming. The code is thrown over a wall *after* or at the time of the release of the Nexus device, so the OEM making the Nexus like HTC or Samsung get exclusive early access and the rest are left scrambling to release new devices with the new OS or to update their old devices, why do you think it takes so long for OEMs to release updates? Contrast that with even Windows, which releases preview/beta/dev versions for everyone to use starting a year before release instead of playing favorites with one OEM.
Add to that the closed nature of Google apps and the app store and you end with something that can just barely be called "open".
I do wish that they'd address the fragmentation issue with the same vigor.
There is no fragmentation issue.
There are older devices that can't run the latest version of the OS. So what?
How is that fragmentation in Android, and not in Apple?
You sound like you read all the headlines but have no clue what you are parroting.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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...
On the MS issue, the one thing you didn't cover and it's the most important is that MS doesn't claim to be OpenSource at all. Because of this, they handle all of the development of the OS and they ensure that there's plenty of warning to the corporate devs when they're removing features that everyone has become dependent on. The last element is that MS is responsible for updates to the OS, not the device manufacturer. So long as the driver meets the current OS Driver format, it will continue working on the latest/greatest version of the OS.
As an example of this, I just upgraded a 7+yr old laptop to Win7 from XP/SP3 that HP and AMD/ATI don't support anylonger (purchased just prior to Vista's Release), Windows update had drivers for the various hardware - Sound, Modem, Video and Networking. They're not the fastest drivers but they're stable. I'd hoped that Win8 would be a viable upgrade for it but MS has been firm about the minimum specs of Dual Core or better and it's only a Single Core (Turion ML34). So this is the last OS that will run (even linux has already passed it by; including debian). So it'll eek out its remaining life as a Windows box until Win7 reaches EOL in 8 years.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Microsoft stopped vendors from selling a custom non-compatible version of Windows? When?
You tell us to forget about Google apps and app store and then bring it up again?
Google Play and Google Apps run on Android. They are not open, and no one has ever claimed otherwise. No one is forced to use them. You can use other large app stores like Amazon or getjar.
It's not as open as your pet project? Too bad. The Jelly Bean source code has been out for a while. No other major OEM has released a Jelly Bean device yet (well you can count Asus). Want to beat them to it? Go for it: http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429
How is that fragmentation in Android, and not in Apple?
Because it isn't happening with Apple.
Apple is zealous about updates, and an OS upgrade typically is on a 2/3 of devices within weeks of its release. There are still a lot of devices running old versions, but this is due to people hanging onto older phones that are no longer supported,
By contrast Android 4.0, despite being out for more than a year, runs on about 10% of all Android devices. (My data is about 6 months old, but I don't see things changing that rapidly.) The dominant versions are 2.3 (65%; about 21 months old) and 2.2 (20%, over 2 years old.) And this isn't mainly about slow updates: it is mostly due to manufacturers continuing to sell new phones with older versions of the OS. That seems to be changing, but very slowly.
So, the only iOS users stuck with legacy OSs are the minority hanging onto very old devices, of which no more are being made. By contrast, Android devices with a legacy OS constitute 90%, and new devices with the legacy OS still account for a majority of sales.
What about Darwin?
You tell us to forget about Google apps and app store and then bring it up again?
Perhaps you should read things completing before jumping the gun?
Forget about Google apps and the app store for a second.
If you read through all my post in less than a second, please consider applying for a Guiness record.
Google Play and Google Apps run on Android. They are not open, and no one has ever claimed otherwise. No one is forced to use them. You can use other large app stores like Amazon or getjar.
I didn't say they claimed otherwise. I just said that the fine print was so fine that it was missing on things like the "open" tweet.
>It's not as open as your pet project? Too bad. The Jelly Bean source code has been out for a while. No other major OEM has released a Jelly Bean device yet (well you can count Asus). Want to beat them to it? Go for it
Is that a joke? The Nexus 7 is not only out exclusively with Jelly Bean a few days after the source release, it is subsidized by Google's marketplace profits, which even Samsung, HTC, etc. cannot match in price. Why do you think there's no $199 7" tablet for that? Good luck trying to compete with Nexus 7. The deck is stacked against the competition. Why do you think the Galaxy Tab 7 is $250 and not $199 ?
"So, basically, they are just stealing the concept and backbone of Android and molding it into their own competing product..."
How is forking an open source project "stealing"? Isn't that the whole purpose of open source?
"There are older devices that can't run the latest version of the OS. So what?"
You mean "older devices" like the new Motorola devices that coming out that are not running the latest OS?
Don't you think it is a little strange that a company owned by Google can't even introduce phones with the newest OS?
Utter nonsense.
http://www.bgr.com/2012/06/12/apple-ios-fragmentation-iphone/
Take off those Apple Blinders.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Android is open so long as you only do what Google wants
Perhaps another way to look at it is Android is open so long as you are Android. Once you cease to comply with OHA standards, you cease to be Android.
Standard-compliance is a good thing. Non-compliant innovation is a good thing, too - unless you falsely advertise you do comply.
It will run the latest version as soon as its released for it.
The phone has been in development since far longer than google owned Moto.
In the meantime the impact to the user and the app developer of the phone being on ICS vs Jellybean is exactly ZERO.
Everything works, All apps work. Its a total non issue that apple fanboys like to pretend isn't happening to their world.
And to make sure it doesn't happen to their world they buy a new phone and pay the ETF every single year?
I've got old iphones sitting around that I can't even use any more.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Oh, cool, you found an article that talks about "Apple fragmentation" that you didn't even bother to read. Gee, that makes e feel dumb.
If I were wearing "Apple binders" I wouldn't even care about Android market fragmentation. Instead I'm an Android user who has to live with the nasty results of fragmentation.
I find it amusing that you're citing the forking of a project as a major problem, when that's always been cited as one of the key selling points for FOSS - the fact that no external vendor can force you to do something you don't want, because you can always take a copy of the source code and do it yourself.
I've seen nothing in any of this about Alibaba/Aliyun talking about expectations of using the Android trademarks, or demanding some sort of support for their fork from Google... no, this mostly seems to be about Google saying "Whoa, you can't build a system using our open source stuff that doesn't somehow funnel money into our bank accounts!"
And if you don't see the hypocrisy inherent in that - "embracing open source" while using "we own it, do what we say" as a cudgel to force people to conduct business in a certain way... you're simply not paying attention.
It would be like the Apache foundation coming after me for taking the Apache source code, building a fork of it with my own features and customization built in, and calling it "Comanche" on the market... if your source is open, the ability to do this is *EXACTLY* the intent of the writers of the FOSS licenses.
Yeah, the tutorial cleverly focuses on layout expressed in XML for the first several pages, hiding any actual program code. The first mention of Java appears in a source code filename in Starting an activity: "If you're using a different IDE or the command line tools, create a new file named DisplayMessageActivity.java".
So, Android's open, and Google apps are not, then? Fine, let's work from there.
Why is Google getting so anxious about Aliyun being "based on Android" if it (Android) is open? Is Aliyun violating the Apache license? I've seen nothing to indicate that as a reason. Is there some requirement in the licensing that says "any OS built from this code must come preinstalled with Google apps and only in a way Google approves of?" That'd be a curious definition of open. I see nothing in any of these comments about Aliyun using Android trademarks, or circumventing restrictions to get access to the Google stores, or violating an Apache license. All I see is "forking the open source software we released to the world works against our interests, so we'll threaten to destroy Acer's business to protect our own."
Please enlighten us - what's the issue, exactly, other than "Google isn't making money off this fork of the software?" And can you point us to the clause of the Apache license which says that "anything Google releases under this license is completely controlled by Google in perpetuity?" Because I looked, but I can't seem to find it.
Uh... still Google?
Please point out the clause in the Apache Software License where it says "any fork of this software must be 100% compatible (as defined by Google) with the original."
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.
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.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
(Warning: rant below)
When this story first appeared here, everybody was screaming left and right that the information was unsubstantiated, that there was no (reliable) source, and that Google couldn't have done something like this. That gave me a good laugh. They completely ignored the "no comment" part from Acer (not Asus) and Google, which should say to anyone who's listening with half an ear that the events were most likely true, but the mouthpieces needed to wait for the PR department to decide on how to spin it before responding. The only other possibility was that Google, being such a big company, was waiting for confirmation. But Acer, being a small company, should have had a categorical denial immediately if it actually had been untrue. But of course it couldn't have been true and Alibaba was just making things up, because Google couldn't do something so...evil.
Now that it has emerged that Google actually did do this, people are now claiming that Google isn't being anti-competitive, that they're not doing what Microsoft did in the 90's with Windows, that they're not evil, just because. There are no reasons presented here. There's just a whole lot of because, followed by some hand-waving with how this is different from when Microsoft did it twenty years ago. Sure, it's probably legal because they don't have a monopoly, but people are saying that when Google does it, it is not at all being evil.
So what if Aliyun is a fork of Android? Isn't Android open source? Is it wrong to fork? Does that infringe on some copyrights, because last I heard, Android's codebase was largely FOSS, which means anybody could repackage it under a different name, without any modifications. So what if Aliyun is advertising that they can run Android apps? Is is illegal to do so in that jurisdiction? I may be illegal in the U.S. and in Europe (and even that's arguable), but they're not selling this phone here.
And the response by Google is outright evil. It is wrong, even if it's legal. If Google had any legal standing, they would've sued. Instead, they threaten an OEM with pulling their privileges. They had no legal recourse, so they bully instead. They throw their weight around. Because Acer is not Samsung or HTC, who can take a chunk of the Android userbase with them if they go exclusively Aliyun. It's Acer, who's hanging onto the phone market by a thread. It's Acer, whose phones don't even have a U.S. presence.
Tell me how this is not evil. Tell me this is what companies are supposed to do when the product they advertise as "open" is forked. I guess it's now also perfectly reasonable for Oracle to threaten HP or any other OEM who packages LibreOffice with their Linux offerings. Because that's exactly what this is. And if Oracle, Apple, or Microsoft did something like this, there'd be people up in arms right about now, not throwing around lame excuses trying to justify what happened (there'd be some of those too, but either identified shills or trolls, and not nearly as many).
I thought this was a place where people were halfway intelligent. I thought people here could see things for what they were, and not what they wanted it to be. But all that's left seem to be fanbois, shills, and sheep. /rant
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
It strikes me as more like Atari vs. Nintendo than MS vs. the world, or Oracle vs. Google.
This is more like Dell releasing computers with ReactOS installed. Microsoft would likely have a problem with this.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
It still doesn't make any sense, given that members of OHA can build devices using different mobile OSes (like Bada or WinPhone). And how is that different from an Android fork, really? Especially the one that's not even advertised as such?
Google's not afraid of the competition. They're not complaining about Amazon's fork of Android. What they mind is that this member of the group organized to build a successful open Android system was trying to both be in the club, getting the benefits of being in the club, and also break the club rules about working counter to the purpose of the club. That's fair. That's not evil. "In or out, Acer buddy, but close the door. We're having a meeting."
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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."
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.'"
Google doesn't have a problem with Alibaba, who is not a member of the Open Handset Alliance, making Aliyun as long as they don't violate the terms of the license, even though it works contrary to the Android ecosystem advantage. What they have a problem with is a member of the Open Handset Alliance which was formed to make Android a viable ecosytem helping them do it while still enjoying the benefits of being a member of that club. That is quite reasonable. A deal is a deal.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
He did us a favor. It's like if Microsoft prevented the world from using Windows ME.
Honeycomb was a turd, and an old turd now at that.
Well, the iPhone 3GS was released in 2009, the iPhone 4 was released in 2010, the iPhone 4s was released in 2011, the fourth generation iPod touch was released in 2010, the iPad 2 was released in 2011, and the "new iPad" was released in March.
Guess what? On September 19th anyone who has any of those devices will be able to connect to a wifi hotspot anywhere in the world and update to iOS 6. Can you say the same about Android devices from 3 years ago -- or even Android devices released next month running old operating systems?
If I bought an iPhone 4s on September 20th that was in the channel and still has ios 5, I can update it as soon as I take it out of the box, can you say the same about the Motorola devices?
All Google is saying is that you can't play both sides of the fence. Either be Amazon or Archos and successfully roll your own with your own app-store, or be a part of the OHA and get special access to Gapps and early releases. Being in-between was seen as a conflict of interest for Google for obvious reasons.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is their product, their choice in who they do business with. And for the rest of us, they release the source code.
That makes it quite the distinction between them and Microsoft for those people trying to make a comparison. Google isn't saying you can't run another OS like WinMo or Symbian or WebOS etc. Just saying you can't run a non-OHA compliant fork along side a compliant fork.
That said, I think Microsoft got the raw end of the deal there too. But it's the price you pay when you make it to the top.
I accidentally typed Asus instead of Acer in my post.
My B.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
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."
"But we are still going to count any machines you sell towards our marketshare."
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Well, I understand the concept of irony and you don't. I'm also smart enough to stop arguing when I run out of arguments, and you're not. So if I'm dumb...
Android is NOT an operating system. GNU/Linux is an operating system. Android is a heavily customized GNU/Linux distribution that includes a java-based GUI and SDK. Android is Free Software. Google is the Android maintainer and main developer, and it decides to help certain manufacturers to achieve better results with their android-based devices. Google gets to choose in what companies it wants to invest its time and money. If Microsoft wanted to release an Android phone, Google would most likely say no, since microsoft works on a competing mobile platform, and therefore would not make a very good partner. Same goes for Acer/Alibaba if they want to compete.
Also, now that we have Android's definition clear, let's define Aliyun: It's certainly NOT an operating system. It's just a fork of Android. So, Aliyun is to Android what Linux Mint is to Ubuntu. If the Linux mint guys asked Canonical to help them out build their distro, would it be wrong for Canonical to refuse? Are they obliged to help them? Now, trying to close the code, or suing them, would be another thing. But telling them "You don't get to be part of our club and we won't invest time and money in your project because it's not compatible with our goals" is certainly not unethical or wrong in any way whatsoever.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
The difference is that Amazon makes an APK of Amazon Appstore available for sideloading. Thus the Amazonverse consists of the Kindle Fire and any Android device supporting "Unknown sources" onto which the Amazon Appstore has been sideloaded, such as my Archos 43 and my Nexus 7. Furthermore, because (at least the original model of) the Kindle Fire supports "Unknown sources", this means that every Android device in the Amazonverse can also join the SlideMEverse.
In any case, it's been pointed out to me that this was Chase's fault. My next bank will be one that allows check deposit from a PC with a flatbed scanner, such as Ally.
Can you say the same about Android devices from 3 years ago -- or even Android devices released next month running old operating systems?
I'm an Androidian, so everybody believe me when I say this guy is 100% right. Except I'm not so concerned about the Froyo devices that will be sold next month. I'm worried about the ones sold next year, and the year after that. If Froyo remains the the dominant version of Android 2 years from now, Android is in big trouble.
Why are you comparing features of iOS applications being disabled in older hardware, with differing OS level features on Android hardware that are currently sold now?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Because its the obvious comparison.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Android is "open", so they could probably go the Amazon route, fork Android,
Well gee wiz knock me out with a feather! That is the whole point. Amazon is happily their thing, garden-walled a version of Android and Google lets them. But Google doesn't need to provide assistance for purposefully fragmenting Android.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
>But Google doesn't need to provide assistance for purposefully fragmenting Android.
How will allowing Acer to make Android phones along with Aliyun doing that? Will Google pull Nexus 7 from retailers selling Aliyun handsets too to teach them a lesson?
We're not talking about Google helping Aliyun or Amazon with the fork here.
This space for rent.
All google is saying is that if you don't want to play by their rules, they won't give you support. Fork it, and you're on your own. Seems fair to me and they're not "going after anyone".
Apple forbid that phones be tailored to the users' interests rather than to the vendors' and app makers' interests.
Google isn't espousing a closed ecosystem, so it's a bad idea to approvingly quote the Alibaba guy who claimed that. Google just won't help anyone who wants to fragment the Android ecosystem in ways that Google thinks are bad ideas.
This is the same good reason Sun wouldn't let Microsoft go off and branch (break) Java. It shatters the ecosystem with various things working on various branches and the ordinary end user not being able to distinguish what's what and finally just leaving to go somewhere else. There is no evilness going on here, there's just the fact of what does happen . Facts are facts, not evil plots. Like it or not, there has to be some control somewhere for engineering to work. Google's pretty easy to get along with but that doesn't mean that there aren't players who will try to take advantage of that fact for whatever reason and force Google to act to protect the overall ecosystem.
Obviously deceptive.
Applications do not equal Operating System. The features that are disabled in an iOS application are easily replaced by third-party application running on that same version of OS. The newest version of iOS will run all recent phones (iPhone 3GS and newer).
Unlike the Android environment where applications written to take advantage of new features of the newest version of OS will not run on the older versions of Android which is stilly likely installed on a phone that you purchase TODAY.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
We agree that the Aliyun OS is not part of the Android ecosystem and you're under no requirement to be compatible.
However, the fact is, Aliyun uses the Android runtime, framework and tools. And your app store contains Android apps (including pirated Google apps). So there's really no disputing that Aliyun is based on the Android platform and takes advantage of all the hard work that's gone into that platform by the OHA.
So if you want to benefit from the Android ecosystem, then make the choice to be compatible. [It's] easy, free, and we'll even help you out. But if you don't want to be compatible, then don't expect help from OHA members that are all working to support and build a unified Android ecosystem.
Microsoft was a monopoly. Google isn't yet. Microsoft's mission was to prevent progress they didn't control. Google's is to create something new and wonderful. It is different.
In a few years when Android is all you can get in the market, then it will be the same thing. But not yet.
Help stamp out iliturcy.