Google Blocking Asus's Android-Windows "Duet"?

Google more restrictive than Microsoft by mrspoonsi · 2014-03-09 03:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is that not Evil or something like that?

Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Of course not. Google is perfect and does no wrong. This is FUD from Microsoft's PR shills.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Cassini2 · 2014-03-09 03:36 · Score: 1

If Microsoft's PR shills are saying: "Microsoft's product sucks so bad in the marketplace that Google isn't letting companies release enough product to run alternative operating systems", then Microsoft needs new shills, better product and a new PR department.
Re: Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

You really should have added the /s tag.
Google cool-aid drinkers might take you seriously.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:38 · Score: 0

Are you an Asperger's sufferer? Seems the guy below you was right about the Google faithful being unable to recognize sarcasm.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by UnknowingFool · 2014-03-09 03:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well if you read any of the articles, there is no real information or than the contention that pressure from Google has delayed the release of this tablet. It is not explained further. I don't know how reliable this considering the following statement:

Currently, only Intel's X86 chip can support dual operating systems, giving consumers an option to run either Android or Windows, but on a separate basis. From Intel's standpoint, tablets that have both Windows and Android dual OS is positive for its business model, and vendors can also increase brand value through dual-system products.
ARM runs on multiple operating systems and in fact, Windows RT and Android can run on the same tablet if MS chooses this path not ARM. Apple could make OS X for ARM; however, the performance may be lacking.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by UnknowingFool · 2014-03-09 03:47 · Score: 2

I meant "other than the contention that pressure from Google"

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by StripedCow · 2014-03-09 04:06 · Score: 3, Informative

For those who missed this, here's a great article:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 04:07 · Score: 0

If Microsoft allowed duel boots on ARM based processors their is a good chance that, Google would lose, and Microsoft would win because of liberty and competitive priced computers
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by invictusvoyd · 2014-03-09 04:29 · Score: 1

Is that not Evil or something like that?
Preventing a device that switches instantly from a bad OS to a terrible OS and vice versa is

... sniff .. not evil
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by silviuc · 2014-03-09 04:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

The one that wrote the article either has no clue what he was writing about or he's getting paid to be dumb. Basically, you want to use Google's services? You gotta do it the way *they* want you to do it. It's their services and their terms.

Android is not free and open-source? Take a look at the shit tonne of Chinese made tablets of brands that we almost never heard of which come with Android but not with Google services. You have to use 3-rd party applications to get stuff onto those such as Mobogenie.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 04:44 · Score: 5, Funny

If Microsoft allowed duel boots
The Microsoft campus laced with footwear engaged in combat? This is not their sole purpose, you heel. Tread lightly, lest you get a sock in the mouth.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 05:11 · Score: 0

It's "don't be evil" and not "don't do evil." That allows "ends justify the means" thinking. Having previously been hacked because their employees ran Windows, doing whatever they can to kill of Windows may feel like a service to the community, and something not evil, no matter how underhanded the tactics.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by ThePhilips · 2014-03-09 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Basically, you want to use Google's services? You gotta do it the way *they* want you to do it. It's their services and their terms.
Which is, if you think about it, is rather evil.
Person can't pay for the services - person can only access the services by buying the Google's approved product.
It is as if we have ended up with game consoles, not portable computers.

--
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Re: Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 05:17 · Score: 0

Whoooooosh
Read the title of the article. Again. Slowly. And then again.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Karlt1 · 2014-03-09 06:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

The one that wrote the article either has no clue what he was writing about or he's getting paid to be dumb. Basically, you want to use Google's services? You gotta do it the way *they* want you to do it. It's their services and their terms.
" if Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future, a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice. So if you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android. Now letâ(TM)s get started.â
Andy Rubin......
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by mspohr · 2014-03-09 06:32 · Score: 1

Right your are, sir... I had asparagus last night and today I am suffering.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by AlphaWolf_HK · 2014-03-09 06:35 · Score: 1

That isn't true at all, actually. You as an individual can download and install Google's Play Services yourself if you'd like. What you can't do however is sell a device commercially that includes Google's Play Services unless you follow their terms.
More information here:
http://wiki.rootzwiki.com/Goog...

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by mspohr · 2014-03-09 06:37 · Score: 4, Funny

First, I never allow my boots to duel. Last time I tried that it was a mess and I'm still limping.
Second, ARM duels are hand contact only.
As far as I know Google and Microsoft have never dueled, probably because there were no chairs available for the loser to throw so we don't really know who would win.
"Liberty and competitive priced computers" ??? What?

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by fikx · 2014-03-09 06:47 · Score: 1

More restrictive? Let someone put MS Office on Android and see what happens...
Of course Google won't like it: This is about the app market. MS would LOVE products like this since it gives Windows users an instant app library. But this is about the market place for Google. To compare apples to apples, see what MS does when their lock-in titles are ported to another platform (breaking the lock-in)...
Not that Google is handling this right, but apples to apples and all that...

--
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 07:09 · Score: 0

They don't mean dual-booting, they mean running both OSes simultaneously. This is more rare but yes, still supported by other CPU architectures.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Rob+Y. · 2014-03-09 07:36 · Score: 0

As far as I know you're allowed to include competing services on a Google-blessed Android device. I think Verizon at one point was selling Motorola devices with Bing as their primary search engine - they just didn't sell. Sure, Google doesn't want to allow 'real Android' to be a platform for excluding Google services (as with the Nokia X devices), but they don't (or can't) try to prevent you from including other services in addition to Google's.
On the other hand, I think even after their anti-trust sanctions, Microsoft still doesn't allow OEM's to include, say Firefox or Chrome to be installed (let alone as the default browser) - or Google preset as the default search engine. Sure, they've been forced to allow users to jump through hoops of their design to get Google as the default search, but still. And don't tell me only idiots consider those hoops too much trouble. I've seen enough users at work typing in google.com to get to google search rather than using the Bing search bar. They're either too lazy or intimidated to change the default, but they're all too glad to have me change it for them...

--
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by recoiledsnake · 2014-03-09 07:37 · Score: 2

That will make you a pirate.

--
This space for rent.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Microlith · 2014-03-09 07:41 · Score: 1

Microsoft would have to back down on the hard lock-down they impose via SecureBoot, first.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 09:12 · Score: 0

Microsoft would have to back down on the hard lock-down they impose via SecureBoot, first.
What has that got to do with running Android apps in VM alongside Windows?
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 09:29 · Score: 0

> person can only access the services by buying the Google's approved product.
Completely untrue. Anyone can access Google services, such as Gmail and Google Earth using nothing more than a browser. Even Windows Phone can do that.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by hairyfeet · 2014-03-09 09:36 · Score: 4, Informative

Frankly after the terms that Google put out with Android AND the story on how Google is taking more and more of Android proprietary by taking critical APIs behind the "GoogleWall" I honestly do not see how any sane person can't see that Google IS Microsoft of the 90s.
Seriously folks, how can anyone argue that they aren't the same company? Blocking competition? See TFA and about a dozen other articles on Google pulling products with threats of being kicked out of having access to the OHA and Google Apps. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? Hell Android is practically a textbook case of that, while Android 1 and 2 and ASOP were practically identical now there is a good chunk of the android games and apps that will not run on ASOP without being recompiled and in many cases rewritten. Trying to lock in? For God's sake they take bog standard X86 laptops and when they are done with them they are more fucking locked down than a cellphone! Hell even the latest windows allows you to fricking dual boot but not ChromeOS!
I'm sorry but while Google USED to be this great "throw shit at the wall and see what cool shit we get" kind of company as with sadly too many companies greed and the desire to keep the stock price high has turned them nasty. Maybe its a universal law of business or something, you get to be #1 and you turn nasty and greedy as you fight to stay top dog.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 10:02 · Score: 0

I am pretty sure OS X for ARM is called iOS, in other words it already exists.
Now if you want a non-touch user interface so you can run it on an ARM notebook, I am sure that Apple already has one somewhere. They are probably using it to pressure intel to keep supplying the with cheap chips for the macbook air.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by tian2992 · 2014-03-09 10:41 · Score: 1

Chromebooks do allow you to install Linux http://www.chromebook-linux.co... just flip a switch.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by drolli · 2014-03-09 10:50 · Score: 1

But there is no service which only google can or does provide.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by ChunderDownunder · 2014-03-09 12:34 · Score: 1

arm v7 provides virtualization extensions - allowing one to host OSes via qemu or Xen.
I haven't seen the equivalent of Virtualbox in Google Play yet though.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 12:35 · Score: 0

What's your point?
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by ChunderDownunder · 2014-03-09 12:51 · Score: 1

Running Windows apps in VM alongside Android?
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 14:29 · Score: 0

Tell me, oh wise man, when Microsoft was dominating the PC market. When did they allow any manufacturer to ship any PC product in a dual-boot configuration with anything other than Microsoft Windows?
Pot, meet Kettle. The tides have turned.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by drinkypoo · 2014-03-09 14:55 · Score: 1

ARM runs on multiple operating systems
Uh, what? Slow down there, you're getting all confuzzled.

and in fact, Windows RT and Android can run on the same tablet
Windows RT is not Windows. It is Windows' retarded younger sibling.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 16:29 · Score: 0

Microsoft in the 90s - If you want to sell Windows you can't sell any other OS.
Google - no such restriction - Asus sells Android and Windows, Samsung has Android and Tizen, etc.
What Google is doing though is protecting the Android brand - the dual OS at the same time stuff is asking for trouble on a mass market product (thus potentially damaging the Android brand), bringing more stuff into Google Play is a reaction to the hardware vendors refusal to release updates (either timely or at all) so Google can thus bring the updates in another manner, etc.
And of course nothing Google has done has stopped the competition from using the Android code to create competing products - Amazon being the most successful as well as Mozilla, Microsoft (through Nokia), Ubuntu, etc.
Google likely has faults, but it is nothing like Microsoft of the 90s.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Mabhatter · 2014-03-09 16:50 · Score: 1

The standard Windows license disallows dual booting, they cashed out BeOS for $100M so they wouldn't have to have that little nugget actually JUDGED in court. There's no way in hell that Windows RT even allows another certified OS to be installed in the boot area. ARM boot areas under RT are locked much more tightly than on x86 systems. I simply cannot see how you could LEGALLY create a dual OS environment within each groups rules. Android would have to be "emulated" and "sandboxed" under RT. So it would never be "real" Android, it would always be "second fiddle" to the RT OS. I cannot see Google allowing and "android that's not full access android" to be released.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Mabhatter · 2014-03-09 16:57 · Score: 1

I think the problem is that Android would be running as a "guest" under RT, not as a real equal OS. There's no way in hell Windows RT license allows ANY FORM of dual OS during the boot sequence... they don't even allow that on x86 Windows installs... that's why you have to use Grub as your OS chooser.
Any "android" running with RT would clearly be "second fiddle" to the RT install. Which would mean all sorts of non-hardware level access and other little quirks versus a "real" android install. While HACKERS can easily make Android run inside those parameters, I cannot see Google Ever allowing the compromises in an Official product... it's just not salable.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 16:57 · Score: 1

Microsoft needs new shills, better product and a new PR department.
They definitely do.
Especially since this story is clearly yet another of Microsoft's Scroogling two minutes of hate.
Google didn't block the Asus Transformer AiO, which also dual boots Android and Windows, so clearly there's more to this than simply blocking a competitor. Most likely it's because Asus has agreed not to produce an incompatible fork of Android, which this new device does.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by maccodemonkey · 2014-03-09 17:32 · Score: 1

ARM runs on multiple operating systems and in fact, Windows RT and Android can run on the same tablet if MS chooses this path not ARM. Apple could make OS X for ARM; however, the performance may be lacking.
They do make OS X for ARM. It's iOS.
Same kernel. Same display server. Same system architecture. They're built from roughly the same source.
The only major difference is the user interface was swapped out for a touch optimized one.
Clearly, from what we've seen with iOS, the performance isn't lacking. The bigger question is if the performance per/$ is better than Intel's offerings.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by maccodemonkey · 2014-03-09 17:34 · Score: 1

The one that wrote the article either has no clue what he was writing about or he's getting paid to be dumb. Basically, you want to use Google's services? You gotta do it the way *they* want you to do it. It's their services and their terms.
This works great for Google's PR department. When they want, they can claim they are open. But in practice, they can be closed.
It's rather dishonest and two faced, to be blunt. Be open enough to use the open label, but be closed enough that most vendors wouldn't be able to deploy an Android tablet without your blessing.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by motokochan · 2014-03-09 18:44 · Score: 1

I'm not sure about the changes made with EFI booting, but for "classic" BIOS-mode booting, Windows does support multiple OS from its own bootloader. Check out info on the boot.ini (NTLDR). Heck, there's even a tool, EasyBCD, that will help you set up the booting options.
Of course, since most people that use desktops run only Windows, almost nobody has actually seen the Windows NT bootloader menu. Some of the people who used NT 3.51 or 4 might recognize it. In addition, since no consumer version of Windows until XP (the merge between the classic and NT codebases) supported multiboot, it's not a huge surprise that people don't know about this. That doesn't discount the practical issues too: editing boot.ini requires writing to an NTFS volume, which only really became possible on Linux with NTFS-3g, or you have to boot into Windows. If you were going to be using Linux primarily, it was much easier to just use lilo or grub for the bootloader.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by hairyfeet · 2014-03-09 18:44 · Score: 1

WRONG, nice try but totally wrong, just try to download any bog standard X86 Linux distro and see how far you get.
In reality what Google has done is turn a laptop into a smartphone because just as the smartphone can ONLY run certain ROMs and certain versions, even if the hardware is the same, so too has Google used UEFI to take bog standard X86 parts and lock the fuck out of them. Can you run BSD? Windows? Haiku? Make a Hackentosh? NOPE, you can on a real laptop but NOT on a Chrome anything.
Sorry but that is total bullshit. BTW we'll see how long those "Linux" distros get supported, considering its being done strictly as a courtesy by a few devs? My bet is you would already be limited if you had a first gen Chromebook and in 2 years? Well it'll be harder than finding somebody that supports android 1.x, Turning X86 into a cellphone? You couldn't be more evil if you put Snidely Whiplash on the logo.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by AlphaWolf_HK · 2014-03-09 19:08 · Score: 1

How so? Google knows people get it this way, and people distribute it this way out in the open, and google hasn't once threatened them with a lawsuit (unless they distribute it with a ROM, in which case they will do so.)

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by silviuc · 2014-03-09 19:56 · Score: 1

Please tell RedHat that they are evil for not giving CentOS users free access to the RHN. This is ridiculous. You can always use other maps, mail, whatever services. No need to stick with Google's but if you do, since it's their stuff, you abide by their rules. In Rome you do as romans do. It's not evil. It's common sense. Look it up, it's what a lot of people seem to be missing these days. It got replaced by entitlement.

Access to Google(Microsoft, Yahoo, insert whatever other company here) services is not a right, it's a privilege.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by silviuc · 2014-03-09 19:58 · Score: 1

They give away an OS, not the Google services. Please learn the difference.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by UnknowingFool · 2014-03-09 23:37 · Score: 1

Oh yes I know the core of iOS is OS X but it is not same OS. Things do not work the same in both systems; they work alike. It would take some work for Apple to get OS X apps to work in iOS like even their own AppleWorks. Instead they create separate versions; these separate versions are due to both UI differences as well as architectural ones but my point is that Intel X86 isn't the only chip that has both.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by UnknowingFool · 2014-03-09 23:40 · Score: 1

Windows RT is not Windows. It is Windows' retarded younger sibling.
RT has no backwards compatibility but apps built using new frameworks by MS can run in RT and 8.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by UnknowingFool · 2014-03-09 23:45 · Score: 1

iOS shares the same core systems as OS X but it's not the same due to architecture differences. As for pressuring Intel, Apple has worked with Intel so much in the past on the MacBook Air chips that Intel came out with the Ultrabook specification based largely on what Apple did. Apple's use of ARM has to due mostly with power efficiency as the first iPad prototypes were x86 based but their power consumption was unacceptable to Apple.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by recoiledsnake · 2014-03-10 03:00 · Score: 1

Microsoft also doesn't go after individuals for pirating Windows. That doesn't mean that those people are not committing copyright infringement by pirating Windows. It's like saying you didn't violate the law by going 1 mile above the speed limit because a cop saw you and didn't pull you over and give you a ticket.

--
This space for rent.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by tlhIngan · 2014-03-10 03:12 · Score: 1

Well if you read any of the articles, there is no real information or than the contention that pressure from Google has delayed the release of this tablet.

Thing is, the pieces are all there.
First, the OHA agreement (which you must sign in order to get Google Apps, including Google Play) prohibit releasing "Android compatible" devices. It's a blanket ban, too - sign the agreement and you CANNOT release anything Android compatible anymore. If you're someone wanting to release an AOSP phone alongside your Google version? You can't.
Second, Google has already reminded OEMs of that obligation and blocked the launch of the Aliyun phone. Rather emphatically, too, forcing the sudden cancellation of the launch event and release at the last minute.
Android is Free alright. However, sign the OHA agreement and you're really Google's bitch. The ironic part is that this comes from the freedom Android provides.
It all stems from the success of the Kindle - prior to that, well, any Android device not running the Google Market was pretty worthless. But with the Kindle, well, there's suddenly a very compelling piece of Android hardware NOT tied to Google, and that Google cannot exert control over.it. Amazon now has control over the entire thing, and the Amazon App Store is considered to be third most lucrative (by money - first is Blackberry, second (close behind) is Apple, third (with about half as much as Apple) is Amazon. Google Play is a very, very, very distant way back (probably anywhere from a tenth to a fifth of Amazon)).
Basically the OHA agreements are used to "lock up" Android OEMs so Amazon can't use them for design help or manufacturing, etc.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-10 10:03 · Score: 0

Especially since this story is clearly yet another of Microsoft's Scroogling two minutes of hate.
No it isnt.

Google didn't block the Asus Transformer AiO, which also dual boots Android and Windows, so clearly there's more to this than simply blocking a competitor.
The Transformer AiO is a dualboot system, the Duet is not a dualboot system.

Most likely it's because Asus has agreed not to produce an incompatible fork of Android, which this new device does.
No it isnt. This version of Android is not an incompatible fork.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-10 10:06 · Score: 0

But Microsoft doesnt have a problem with this, all you are saying is Google is now as evil, abusive and corrupt as Microsoft once was (and potentially still is).
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by exomondo · 2014-03-10 10:38 · Score: 1

The one that wrote the article either has no clue what he was writing about or he's getting paid to be dumb. Basically, you want to use Google's services? You gotta do it the way *they* want you to do it. It's their services and their terms.
I think his point is that Google is shifting their development on Android from AOSP to GMS - now arguably that makes sense given that this means they can roll out new features to devices that can't necessarily upgrade their operating system version, but the question is why make it closed-source and proprietary?
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-10 11:22 · Score: 0

Microsoft in the 90s - If you want to sell Windows you can't sell any other OS.
No that's bullshit, no such thing ever existed. There were many OEMs that tried selling Linux systems but nobody bought them.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-10 23:28 · Score: 0

Windows RT is not Windows

And I guess the ARM version of Ubuntu isn't Ubuntu either?!
Recompiling an OS for a different CPU does not make it a different operating system.
Re:Google more restrictive than Microsoft by squiggleslash · 2014-03-10 23:39 · Score: 1

Which is, if you think about it, is rather evil.

I think the bar for being "evil" seems to have been lowered quite remarkably in that case. It used to involve, at the very least, cruelty and malice. Now, apparently, it's posting some terms and conditions about the use of your services when those services are pretty much optional and when the terms and conditions are more about protecting consumers from brand confusion ("Oh, I'll just buy this Google Play tablet. (One hour later, at home, after cash spent) Wait, it doesn't run half my apps because it's actually just a "compatible" Android-like operating system rather than the real deal?") than they are about Google making money.
Points to note:
- Android is still FOSS
- Google Play is optional. Sure, Google are doing everything they can to encourage you to use it and encourage developers to build stuff on it, but it's not necessary
- Google does not sell Google Mobile Services. And the chump-change it makes in terms of compatibility testing barely pays for the services it covers.
- While Google makes some money from the various stores they sell, between bandwidth costs, transaction processing, etc, nobody out there believes it's a significant source of revenue.
- Finally, until GMS, people were screaming at Google about "Fragmentation". Even today, Android bashers still insist on posting highly misleading pie-charts showing how many different versions of Android are still in use vs iOS.
We can scream at Google when they insist that versions of Android bundled with GMS must no longer allow users to install apps via third parties. Until then, faced with a choice between "Google are doing this because they want control of teh users", and "Google are doing this because they want manufacturers to stop fucking up", we'll go with the former.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Still open legally by loufoque · 2014-03-09 03:24 · Score: 2

It's still open in the sense that legally you can do whatever you want with it.
It's up to you if you want to make Google happy or not.

Re:Still open legally by Gaygirlie · 2014-03-09 03:32 · Score: 5, Informative

It's still open in the sense that legally you can do whatever you want with it.
It's up to you if you want to make Google happy or not.
Google can deny you from adding Google's apps and services on it, though, and the moment you ship an Android-device without those you're removing a lot of the reason for why an Average Jane or Joe would want an Android-device in the first place.
Re:Still open legally by lilo_booter · 2014-03-09 03:49 · Score: 1

And on the other end of the scale, you can't ship closed source products with GPL. This kind of "restricted freedom" isn't purely a google thing, and nor is it all bad.
Re:Still open legally by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 04:01 · Score: 0

An OS isn't partially free or mostly free, it's either free or it isn't. If I'm going to start using proprietary closed source technology I might as well just get a quality device that has the features I really want, which is to say an iPhone, rather than buy a crummy piece of Android junk just because somewhere under the layers of proprietary bullshit there might be a Linux kernel.
Re:Still open legally by nurb432 · 2014-03-09 04:04 · Score: 1

That is true, unless you want play services so you can have customers that actually want to buy your stuff. Being blessed is required to include play ( legally ) in your product.
Without that, you are 'yet another c heap-ass junk tablet maker' and are stuck selling out of Walmart and target..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Still open legally by Immerman · 2014-03-09 04:08 · Score: 1

What? Sure you can. In fact IIRC the GPL specifically states that it should not be interpreted to prohibit bundling with proprietary products, and many Linux distros do just that, such as Red Hat with their proprietary utilities. What the GPL prohibits is *linking* with proprietary products, except through a couple of very specific mechanisms such as used by drivers with proprietary blobs (and even those are, IIRC, permitted as much by community concession to practicality as to secure legal footing)

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Still open legally by lilo_booter · 2014-03-09 04:19 · Score: 1

Yes, it was the latter I was referring to.
Re:Still open legally by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 04:23 · Score: 0

Google can deny you from adding Google's apps and services on it, though, and the moment you ship an Android-device without those you're removing a lot of the reason for why an Average Jane or Joe would want an Android-device in the first place.
Samsung and Amazon have both done fine without Googe's apps. I'm sure there are others as well.
Re:Still open legally by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 05:13 · Score: 0

Awesome man! Linux has finally gone mainstream liberating us all from the evil of closed computing! With Linux we are all free to .... buy DRM'd movies? Sorry, but this isn't the future I had in mind when I first got into Linux back in the 90s...
Re:Still open legally by drjzzz · 2014-03-09 05:38 · Score: 1

or like Apple puts their proprietary OSX atop the open source Darwin, which they forked from BSD? Self-interested, sure, but hardly "evil".

--
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
Re:Still open legally by Bing+Tsher+E · 2014-03-09 06:45 · Score: 1

Darwin is forked from NeXTStep. They then imported a userland from FreeBSD.
Re: Still open legally by aap · 2014-03-09 07:53 · Score: 1

Which Samsung device doesn't have Google Apps?
Re:Still open legally by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 08:17 · Score: 0

Em..... Both Darwin and NeXTStep are owned by Apple. No need to fork. In fact is wasn't a fork.
Darwin is the next evolutionary step of NeXTStep. (pun intended)
Re:Still open legally by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 11:54 · Score: 0

"open" in the same way Mac OS X is open. You can build the base BSD layer from open source code, but even though it is complete, average users would have little use for it.
Re:Still open legally by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2014-03-10 07:04 · Score: 1

It's still open in the sense that legally you can do whatever you want with it. It's up to you if you want to make Google happy or not.
Google can deny you from adding Google's apps and services on it, though, and the moment you ship an Android-device without those you're removing a lot of the reason for why an Average Jane or Joe would want an Android-device in the first place.
True, but it's worth noting that that Microsoft is well positioned to fill those gaps (assuming we're specifically talking about an app-store, search, email and maps). Whilst I do appreciate that Android without the Google bits and with no alternatives is a bit crap, it seems a bit unfair to blame Google for that. That'd be like if Microsoft open-sourced Windows and gave it away for free, and then complaining that they didn't include MS Office.
Re:Still open legally by exomondo · 2014-03-10 13:03 · Score: 1

It's still open in the sense that legally you can do whatever you want with it. It's up to you if you want to make Google happy or not.
AOSP is open yes but how many devices actually ship with AOSP? All Google-approved devices ship with the proprietary application services platform and many also include other proprietary UI layers all with various license agreements governing their use. Then there are forked versions like the Kindle Fire OS which also has a whole lot of proprietary software lockdown. Darwin is open source too but realistically nobody uses it that way, they use OSX with all its proprietary layers on top.
While AOSP is open development is moving from AOSP anyway so that new features aren't dependent on the version of Android that is on the device and are instead implemented in a higher level platform services layer, which is good since many devices cannot upgrade their OS version (and those that can often take a very long time).

The dual boot is stupid for a consumer device. by slackware+3.6 · 2014-03-09 03:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Only one OS will be used, propably based on which OS is currently booted. People are to lazy to reboot to change OS thats just two minutes longer to get on Facebook.

Re:The dual boot is stupid for a consumer device. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

The age of "one device, one OS" is what's "stupid."

And I sure as hell hope English is a second language to you.

Fork them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:31 · Score: 0

Seriously, if nobody likes what google does, fork the platform, it is open source.

Then watch Darwin take effect.

Worked with Open Office.

Re: Fork them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Asus is a member of the OHA. Members are explicitly forbidden to create Android forks. So much for the BS "open" argument.
Self-proclaimed geeks and nerds supporting and defending Google - sad and mind-boggling.
Re: Fork them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:51 · Score: 0

Asus is a member of the OHA. Members are explicitly forbidden to create Android forks.

And that's how they bend you over and fuck you.

Self-proclaimed geeks and nerds supporting and defending Google - sad and mind-boggling.

It'll never happen. This is no different than the leftists who screamed bloody murder about the PATRIOT Act because they said Bush could use it as a tool for GOP villainy who've themselves are now tight lipped in the face of ObamaNation corruption and worse.

Fanbois are fanbois and this is the problem with fanbois.
Re:Fork them by gbjbaanb · 2014-03-09 03:51 · Score: 1

except if Samsung or Asus fork Android, they are welcome to do so... but they do not get to use Google's Play apps (ie the entire ecosystem that pretty much makes up what people consider Android to be)
It would be better to simply create a new OS.. like Tizen and go from there with a clean slate and nothing holding you back. In fact, I wonder why Samsung is putting so much effort into Tizen given all the freedom they have from Google.
Re:Fork them by noh8rz10 · 2014-03-09 04:45 · Score: 1

There's a difference between forking android for a particular device and not having Play Store on that device, vs forking for a particular device then getting thrown out of OHA so NONE of your devices have gApps. The latter is what is going on here.
This is big nasty corporate bullying that blocks new tech and stymies innovation. Do no evil?
Re: Fork them by Microlith · 2014-03-09 07:44 · Score: 1

This is no different than the leftists who screamed bloody murder about the PATRIOT Act because they said Bush could use it as a tool for GOP villainy who've themselves are now tight lipped in the face of ObamaNation corruption and worse.
Always amusing to see ACs spouting off with broad brushes and other batshit insanity. CAUSE EVERYTHING IS ABOUT POLITICS RIGHT!
Re: Fork them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 09:45 · Score: 0

Always amusing to see ACs spouting off with broad brushes and other batshit insanity. CAUSE EVERYTHING IS ABOUT POLITICS RIGHT!
More than you know. The older you survive to be the more you realize that everything, yes everything, is politics..
Re: Fork them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 09:51 · Score: 0

Self-proclaimed geeks and nerds supporting and defending Google - sad and mind-boggling.
It's a self preservation strategy; just as those in prison would become someone's bitch for protection and better treatment. The premise is that Google treats its "bitches" better than its competitors.
The better strategy would be for all of the "little guys" to join a group of like minded people to influence politics towards more fairness, like the ACLU or EFF.
Re: Fork them by CODiNE · 2014-03-09 16:25 · Score: 1

Self-proclaimed geeks and nerds supporting and defending Google - sad and mind-boggling.
Sounds like a "No true Scotsman" argument you've got there.

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Re:Fork them by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 20:43 · Score: 0

Who needs play when there is Amazon app store now.

Of course MS isn't objecting... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:34 · Score: 0

...they're getting their asses kicked in the mobile space. Anything that lower the barrier between them and the customer will be good for them. If that means that their OS has to be shipped with a more accepted alternative so the customer feels secure in their purchase, so be it.

War, war never changes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:37 · Score: 0

and the phone wars are just heating up

The delay is almost certainly on technical grounds by Wierdy1024 · 2014-03-09 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

For example, if android is run under a hypervisor that allows 'quick switching' between the OS's, but restricts what android can do or degrades performance, I can see why Google doesn't want to impact the Android brand by releasing something substandard.

we already know what's on google license for gapps by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:40 · Score: 0

google license for their play store and gapps read that you cant sell a device that run an os different from android if you want to distribute google play store with it.
so asus would have been able to distribute their duet with androdi but without google play store and apps - evidently they tought it wasnt worth enough

Given Microsoft's past history by Johnny+Loves+Linux · 2014-03-09 03:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

of boot loaders and Microsoft's more recent history and their standard practices I think someone would have to be extremely ignorant of Microsoft's history and their standard practices or a shill for Microsoft to state that this is somehow unfair to Microsoft.

Folks, I don't think Microsoft is just misunderstood. I don't think we have to worry about poor little Microsoft surviving its treatment by the "big bully" Google. I think Microsoft is getting exactly the sort of response that it has earned for its behavior.

Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 04:07 · Score: 0

of boot loaders and Microsoft's more recent history and their standard practices I think someone would have to be extremely ignorant of Microsoft's history and their standard practices or a shill for Microsoft to state that this is somehow unfair to Microsoft.
Folks, I don't think Microsoft is just misunderstood. I don't think we have to worry about poor little Microsoft surviving its treatment by the "big bully" Google. I think Microsoft is getting exactly the sort of response that it has earned for its behavior.
Sooo, because Microsoft has a history of jackassery, Google gets a pass?
How's the Google-aid taste?
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by symbolset · 2014-03-09 04:08 · Score: 0

Apparently if you are foolish enough to run Microsoft's Skype on your Nexus 5, they have found a way to kill your battery. This is the same old Microsoft we have always known.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Joe+U · 2014-03-09 04:19 · Score: 1

A few other apps cause that MAJOR FLAW in the Nexus camera driver to appear.
This is an Android driver bug, plain and simple.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Seraphim_72 · 2014-03-09 05:06 · Score: 2

The name of the company is A-S-U-S, the company quashing this is Google, Microsoft have fuck all to do with it. Nice rant though, shake that penguin, make it dance!

--
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 06:18 · Score: 0

Like gated freedom?
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by spire3661 · 2014-03-09 07:46 · Score: 1

NO its just a fucking joke trying to compare Microsoft's malfeasance with Google's. Microsoft pulled some TRULY evil shit back in the day, and continues to this day with some pretty stupid restrictions on its OS.

--
Good-bye
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 08:57 · Score: 0

and yet currently Google is exponentially more evil than Microsoft.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 09:03 · Score: 0

That is a bug in Android.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 09:23 · Score: 0

That is a bug in Android.
shhh... you are disturbing the pro-Google anti-MS ranter with bothersome anti-FUD details..
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 09:40 · Score: 0

So until Google is the same evil as teh M$ you'll just turn a blind eye?

Yeah, you're a fanboi. Keep drinking that kool-aide.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 09:48 · Score: 0

How much does Google pay you to astroturf Slashdot?
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 10:16 · Score: 0

One day you will wake up and realize how stupid you are.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by BasilBrush · 2014-03-09 10:31 · Score: 1

I don't spot anyone claiming that Microsoft isn't a nasty company. What I see is people claiming that Google is becoming ever more like Microsoft, as time passes. And your post just adds more evidence for that.
And lets not pretend that Google is specifically punishing Microsoft. They are only seeking to serve their own profits, just as Microsoft did.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 12:50 · Score: 1

Truly evil shit like violating the copyright of every book author, everywhere and getting away with it?
Like monitoring your behavior practically everywhere on the web, and then tell you that your privacy shouldn't matter unless you're evil?
Like bundling their services with a free operating system designed to kill operating system sales of Apple, MS, etc? Remember that MS was slapped by the EU for bundling a free browser with their OS. But Google does this with the entire OS!
Like handing over your gmail, G+ and browsing data to the NSA?
Google has done each and every one of these things. Google is worse than MS ever was.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 17:35 · Score: 0

I used to be a Microsoft hater in the 2000s but while Microsoft was always an anti-competitive bitch they never threatened our way of life. Being spied on and having my whole life recorded by a private company not even the god damn government is far worse than bundling fucking Internet Explorer or any other shit Microsoft did back then that looks absolutely trivial now.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by terjeber · 2014-03-10 00:27 · Score: 1

Fuck you're dumb. Really. Like retarded. A company, be it Microsoft or Google working in an anti-competitive manner is bad for you as a consumer. The fact that all the mentally handicapped Linux shills are just too happy to suck Google dick while accepting the exact same behavior they are criticizing Microsoft for blows my mind. I mean, how far up the rear are you willing to take it by corporate rapists before you realize it is rape no matter who does it?
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by terjeber · 2014-03-10 00:29 · Score: 1

Google of today is Microsoft of yesteryear. All corporations will go in that direction, they are basically required to do so by law. I am puzzled at how much credit Linuxtards are giving Google these days, but at the same time they are not at all willing to accept that Microsoft of today is not even close to the Microsoft of the 90s and early naughts.
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by terjeber · 2014-03-10 00:31 · Score: 1

Yeah, an Android bug must be the fault of Microsoft. Are you paid to shill for Google or do you just like the taste of Google Exec dick?
Re:Given Microsoft's past history by spire3661 · 2014-03-10 08:31 · Score: 1

Anyone who complains about the browser thing OBVIOUSLY doesn't know the reasons why that was done.

--
Good-bye

Re:The delay is almost certainly on technical grou by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Substandard... you mean like 90% of Android devices in existence.

Re: The delay is almost certainly on technical gro by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:49 · Score: 1

The cool-aid is strong in this one.

Re:The delay is almost certainly on technical grou by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:52 · Score: 0

Fanboy or shill, you decide.

"technical grounds"? Really?

Fuck Google. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:54 · Score: 0

It feels weird saying that when there is Microsoft in the story as well. How they have fallen.

I would gladly buy a hybrid like this. Even more so if both OSes run at the same time and Android acts as an overlay OS to the underlying Windows install.
That way I could slap Windows on an SSD, optimize the login, and really only ever turn it on if I need to do heavy multitasking, gaming, or heavy programming that requires a beefy machine. I partially do this now, using tablet as a remote screen to PC at times, or even using it as mouse outside of gaming.

Why the hell would Google be against this? This gets them more units out there, considerably more in fact.
Are Google seriously so incapable of making ANY sensible decisions? It stinks of the idiocy that killed iGoogle because "there is no way we can monetize it" (when there is a pretty god damn empty sidebar and a top-bar that could easily have some ad-strip like Gmail has. NO PLACE TO ADVERTISE AT ALL MAN!)

Re:Fuck Google. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 04:20 · Score: 0

Bro, Google payed $3.2 Billion for a company selling luxury smoke detectors that never made a profit...Google, like Facebook, is getting desperate and throwing around cash hoping they buy something that doesn't suck. Shades of AOL buying Time-Warner back during the last internet bubble.
Re:Fuck Google. by Gavagai80 · 2014-03-09 07:36 · Score: 1

That's not getting desperate, that's having so much money you can't think of anything more useful to do with it.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Fuck Google. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 10:14 · Score: 0

How about pay a dividend? That's what you're supposed to do, not blow the shareholders cash on your buddy's boondoggles.

but android is open like your mom's legs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:58 · Score: 0

Anyone can do it

Re:The delay is almost certainly on technical grou by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:59 · Score: 0

Surely you jest. Android ships on $50 Chinese tablets that can't load a web page without falling on its face. iOS owns the high end (and most of the profits), Android owns the low end (and most of the unit sales).

Android has a larger market share on tablets by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 03:59 · Score: 0

This is like giving the huge Android userbase an opportunity to try Windows. i.e. free marketing for Microsoft to Android users. I am not surprised Google is trying to block this...

Re:The delay is almost certainly on technical grou by IamTheRealMike · 2014-03-09 04:07 · Score: 2

And how many of those $50 tablets were approved by Google and run the Google apps suite? I thought the answer was "almost none of them".

The article gives no useful info - assuming any such dispute exists at all, it could be for any reason: seems like the blog is just assuming it must be the dual boot capability because that's what gets traffic. But if for some reason that was the issue, Asus or anyone else could ship devices running the regular open source Android, sans Gmail/Maps/Play Store, without having to deal with Google.

Re:The dual boot is stupid for a consumer device. by StripedCow · 2014-03-09 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

You forgot about the pr0n angle.
You have no idea what people will use that second OS (with its completely separate filesystem) for.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.

Re:The dual boot is stupid for a consumer device. by dinfinity · 2014-03-09 04:13 · Score: 2

"a laptop-tablet hybrid that can instantly switch between Android and Windows 8.1"

Can Apple be Far Behind? by BoRegardless · 2014-03-09 04:17 · Score: 1

This has obviously been considered now Apple has its ARM A7-A8 series CPU.

It should certainly be possible to put that in a MacBook Air to allow it to run iOS 7 and onward, so we can have both low power tablet and high power OSX in one small package.

Re:Can Apple be Far Behind? by Karlt1 · 2014-03-09 06:19 · Score: 1

It should certainly be possible to put that in a MacBook Air to allow it to run iOS 7 and onward, so we can have both low power tablet and high power OSX in one small package.
There is no need to have an A7 in the Macbook Air to run iOS apps.
There is already a fully functional version of iOS 7 that runs on x86 based Macs and there has been since the app store was introduced. In fact I doubt that there is a single app in existence for iOS that hasn't at one point been run natively on an x86 based Mac.
When a developer runs an iOS app on the iPhone simulator for the Mac, they are not running on an emulator, the app is compiled as an x86 binary and linked against an x86 build of the iOS libraries.
Re:Can Apple be Far Behind? by swb · 2014-03-09 12:33 · Score: 1

It kind of makes me wonder if there's an x86 iPad out there running OS X and iOS in a VM..
Re:Can Apple be Far Behind? by ChunderDownunder · 2014-03-09 13:05 · Score: 1

Yep, if Microsoft's Surface Pro paradigm ever seriously threatened the iPad, Cupertino would be out with a hybrid OS at the next annual developer conference.
One OS to rule them all, Windows 8.x, is a strategy MS have copped flack for. But if there's one company that could pull it off, it's Apple with their design sensibilities as viewed through the reality distortion field.
Apple have already reskinned parts of OS X for touch - e.g. iWork and Safari, so there's enough commonality to port useful programs between platforms. The app stores are in place, what's needed is a unified API, a common subset of OS X and iOS, that deprecates any 'legacy' NextSTEP code from the 80s. They've migrated developers before with Classic and Carbon.

Not dual boot by Immerman · 2014-03-09 04:18 · Score: 4, Informative

I agree dual boot for a tablet might not get a lot of use, though I could definitely see being able to reboot my tablet into windows occasionally for real work being a nice perk, instead of carrying around a laptop as well.

But this is not dual boot. Watch the video, both OSes appear to be running side by side, it only takes about 4 seconds to switch between them. More like a KVM switch between two computers built into the same tablet form factor.

And *that* I think has serious potential - android is better for the lightweight appliance stuff, and windows is right there, along with the clip-on keyboard, for when you want to get work done.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Wickedness by one small step at at time by goombah99 · 2014-03-09 04:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Google
goggle
guggle (flow in an irregular current with a bubbling noise)
gurgle
burgle
burgee (A triangular sailing flag, a show of force by colors)
burger
burker (to murder or supress without leaving evidence)
bucker
bicker
wicker
wicked

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

Re:Wickedness by one small step at at time by noh8rz10 · 2014-03-09 04:32 · Score: 1

+1 I'll use these in WWF
Re:Wickedness by one small step at at time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 04:36 · Score: 0

You could eliminate some kinks with goggle->gaggle->gargle->gurgle
Re:Wickedness by one small step at at time by goombah99 · 2014-03-09 04:40 · Score: 2

googly goggly giggly jiggly jingly tingly tinkly dinkly dinkey dinked winked wicked

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

iOS+Windows if google fucks this up by detain · 2014-03-09 04:25 · Score: 0

If they're already looking at being able to switch between 2 platforms and google is saying no, the next logical step will be to have both iOS and Windows running along side each other.

--
http://interserver.net/

Re:iOS+Windows if google fucks this up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 04:38 · Score: 0

I can actually see FirefoxOS catching on at this rate. Apple isn't likely to want dual-boot, they don't even like it when you run OSX off their sanctioned overly expensive hardware. FirefoxOS runs quite well on good hardware, allegedly, so and they'd most certainly pounce on the chance. I doubt Apple would care given how successful they already are. They rarely do care about such things unless it is to stop them.
Re:iOS+Windows if google fucks this up by Overzeetop · 2014-03-09 04:53 · Score: 1

That works right up to the point where Apple controls every transistor on every machine that runs iOS. Even Jony and Tim won't fuck up Apple's cash cow that badly, and they done some really stupid-as-shit things since ol' Stevie boy went toes up.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:iOS+Windows if google fucks this up by detain · 2014-03-09 05:24 · Score: 1

Then it will be Windows + FirefoxOS or Ubuntus new Phone OS i hope. Wonder if its running them virtualized or if they each have their own hardware?

--
http://interserver.net/
Re:iOS+Windows if google fucks this up by Rob+Y. · 2014-03-09 07:55 · Score: 1

Unlikely. But your post points out the real situation. It's Microsoft that wants dual-booting phones. They can't get anybody to buy their phones, so they hope to use dual boot to encourage people to at least try their OS. Apple or Google have nothing to gain there, so Apple would never cooperate. Google has less control in this case.
But this article is about convertible laptop/tablets, and in that market, I imagine it's Asus that wants dual-booting. Anybody who would buy one of these is buying it for the Windows laptop capability. And Asus wants them to pay a premium for it to be convertible into a tablet. Other than the possibility that Asus has made it easy to share files between the Android tablet and the Windows laptop worlds, there'd be no advantage to this over a cheap laptop plus a Nexus tablet. Microsoft would probably prefer Asus to build an all Windows convertible, since again, the buyer's buying the Windows laptop. If MS can give their unpopular tablet OS a boost, that'd be preferable to them over a Windows/Android hybrid. Google might prefer an all Android convertible, though. But even they probably realize Android laptops at this point are a stretch.
In any case, we're talking about the high-end (i.e. expensive) laptop market. That's not a happy place to be these days. Cheap laptops or even Chromebooks serve the real laptop market better. Power hungry games and productivity apps do better on a desktop (and for the most part, a cheap one will do fine there too). The rest of the market is for phones and 7" tablets, and I don't see Asus pushing for dual booting there...

--
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Re:iOS+Windows if google fucks this up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 14:48 · Score: 0

That would be such a gigantic futility in exercise(*), that even Microsoft won't do it.
(*) It's an exercise in futility, plus you're doing it wrong.

Microsoft is not the more evil one by Billly+Gates · 2014-03-09 04:26 · Score: 1, Troll

They are just like Apple and now Google and every other company in existence.

They are all equal and will be assholes as soon as they have marketshare. It comes to show you that only competition frees. Even in opensource it is not good to have 1 player set standards which is evident in Xorg and the traction to stop Wayland just as an example.

So those who bash I WONT TOUCH IT BECAUSE IT IS FROM MICROSOFT!! Need to realize Android is not a savior either as Google is now being cocky since they have major marketshare.

If the situation were in reverse and Windows Mobile had 80% of the market you could bet Google would be in favor of dual boot and of course MS would fight it etc.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:Microsoft is not the more evil one by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 15:00 · Score: 0

If Darth Vader would start wearing a pink tutu and talk in a cute voice, he would still be Darth Vader, not a Fairy.
"Luke, you do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy."
There's a hint for you.

Re:The delay is almost certainly on technical grou by Billly+Gates · 2014-03-09 04:32 · Score: 1

Oh please.

Can you honestly say it is not because Windows mobile will finally be put on a tablet with a great market presence? The surface pro is full Windows 8 and too expensive for consumers. The other surface is not popular and is returned when joe six pack can not run his software on it if it is purchased.

Type 1 hypervisors run fine with performance. In type 2 hypervisors with mechanical disks on top of a host OS which is what virtualbox and VMware Workstation use is a different story. IOPS on a ssd far out exceed a traditional disk and even a raid 5 array! I have benchmarks on my system to prove it on a sans disk that is not even the top end model. I get 300 megs a second copying files.

So a tablet with this not running 2 oses on an ssd with a type 1 is doable. After all servers run like this all the time.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Google, too powerful? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 04:40 · Score: 0

Wow, google becomes the "decider" of all things tech! Antitrust pushback from our government, anyone?

Re: Google, too powerful? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 05:30 · Score: 0

You are a few years late to the party. But good morning good sir. Nice that you finally woke up.

And I though I was old by Overzeetop · 2014-03-09 04:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Laptops aren't just laptops these day - there are more and more hybrid devices which switch from laptop to tablet (a Sony Flip, for example). Sadly, operating systems for laptops (like Windows) are wholly inappropriate - or just very, very poorly optimized for tablet usage (yes, Windows again). Android is light years ahead of the Metro interface for tablet use. So it's better to be able to switch back and forth to get the best interface you can.

Sure you could reboot every time you wanted to switch, but you may as well go back to DOS and single threaded work. Why should we NOT want to be able to transition between the OS and application that fits the job the best?

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Apple Owns... do they? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 04:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

My phone is a Galaxy Note 3. Quad core, 2+ GHz, HD display. It is extremely responsive, I like the supplied OS/app feature set (with the exception of the My Magazine bloatware from Verizon), and to make it "mine" I only had to DL five or six apps from the Play store, all free. It's light and slim, with a large display that I love. We also have iPhones in the family, so I'm quite familiar with them -- and I have a current model, maxed out iPad. So I have a basis for comparison. The notification system on the Note is far superior, for one thing, and both the email and text messaging facilities are superb. The phone portion works extremely well too. Android has come a long way from the crippled crap that infested my old Droid, and the Note hardware makes the Droid look like junk.

I really don't think Apple "owns" the high end at this point; they're dominant by virtue of a long time in the market with a good product, but there are other players and they've got some great products. I could see Android getting some real traction in this area now, and I would not have said that previously.

--fyngyrz
anon due to mod points

Crouton by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 05:14 · Score: 0

Crouton is a chroot that let one switch instantly from Linux to Chromebook OS and back, both running simultaneously and sharing some of the same disk partition.

Yet google blocks this from being useful by not allowing Crouton outside of a developer mode boot that leaves the computer very fragile to accidentally erasing it's disk and impairs updates and prevents other things from working.

Re:The delay is almost certainly on technical grou by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 05:20 · Score: 0

And how many of those $50 tablets were approved by Google and run the Google apps suite? I thought the answer was "almost none of them".

Actually, most of them run Google Play, so they are approved by google, and you can install anything on them, including parts of the overrated "Google apps suite".

Free as in not by pak9rabid · 2014-03-09 05:56 · Score: 0

Android is free and open

So where's the Raspberry Pi distribution (that actually works) if it's so free and open?

Re:Free as in not by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 06:11 · Score: 1

Here it is, BTW:
http://androidpi.wikia.com/wiki/Android_Pi_Wiki
And also, well, you can try to explain to folks at Cyanogenmod that Android is not free and open, it seems they got it completely wrong...
Re:Free as in not by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 07:07 · Score: 0

If Cyanogenmod is so free and open, why does Replicant exist and needs so much work to run it on new hardware?
Re:Free as in not by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 08:22 · Score: 0

Android AOSP is open, unless you are in the OHA group. Then not eben Android AOSP is open.
Android as in Google Android is as closed software as Apple's iOS.
In other words : you can use Android freely unless you work with Google and/or want the Google apps. Then you bend over and hand the lubricant to Eric Moleman Schmidt..
Re:Free as in not by pak9rabid · 2014-03-12 07:22 · Score: 1

Perhaps I should have been more clear: where's the Raspberry Pi distribution that's actually useable for anything (aka, not slower than dog shit).

Nobody forces you by drolli · 2014-03-09 05:58 · Score: 1

to use google closed source code if you want to run android apps on your device. Nokia/MS can do it, blackberry too, and obviously many cheap Chinese nameless devices. There are other app stores than google play.

That being said, I understand Google why i they don't like to brand a "dual boot"/"switching device which probably would suck even more power and have a more indeterministic behavior than even the most crapware-loaded samsung device.

If MS or asus likes this so much, nobody hinders them to to the right things, which are either
* give Windows the capability to execute Android Apps from the start
* make an android app which runs windows programs.

Re:Nobody forces you by spire3661 · 2014-03-09 07:49 · Score: 1

Not only that but now the machine will have THREE personalities. Win 8 desktop, Modern UI and Android.

--
Good-bye
Re:Nobody forces you by drolli · 2014-03-09 10:29 · Score: 1

...and the manufactures own brillant vision of a "simplified" android ui...
Re:Nobody forces you by Bing+Tsher+E · 2014-03-09 14:42 · Score: 1

...and the manufactures own brillant vision of a "simplified" android ui...
Do you mean, the manufacturer's own Android Launcher? Didn't you know you can install your own Launcher under Android? Here is a list of some of the Launchers you can install. Each one is a slightly different User Interface and many are customizable. Why would it matter what sort of broken crap the hardware vendor put on the thing. You just download a replacement.

Tablet + keyboard + trackpad by tepples · 2014-03-09 06:10 · Score: 2

Android is light years ahead of the Metro interface for tablet use.

Plug a keyboard and trackpad into a tablet and is it still a tablet? I was under the impression that the traditional Windows desktop was light years ahead of Android for laptop use.

Re:Tablet + keyboard + trackpad by Bing+Tsher+E · 2014-03-09 06:54 · Score: 1

My tablet, when I add a bluetooth keyboard and mouse to it, becomes a full Windows desktop machine if I wish. I even have Minecraft installed on it now. Installing the JVM and the Minecraft program was as easy as it was on every other Windows machine I've had. I also added emu8086 which is one of my favorite toys. Any Win32 binary will do (if it runs on Windows 7 or later)

True???? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 06:41 · Score: 0

If true, then I think that would push GOOGLE fully into the old MSFT role of the big villain. (Which they are)

Rambling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 06:42 · Score: 0

What are you rambling on with your insightful hatred of MSFT? Clarify your thoughts before posting. That way you won't look ignorant.

didn't read the article...Slashdot is a bunch of w by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 06:50 · Score: 0

There got that out of the way. Google is not stopping them from releasing the device what Google is doing is reminding them that for Google Apps the agreement forbids this. Slashdot fuck off

Embrace, extend, extinguish by pem · 2014-03-09 08:23 · Score: 1

Microsoft is looking for a new revenue stream -- they would be the only software vendor taking money from Asus for this hybrid, and then it would be in their interest to make the MS part indispensible, and the Android part -- not so much.

Google understands perfectly what Microsoft is up to. Why is it evil for them to nip it in the bud?

Who even knows if Asus really wants to do this? They are not going to voice a negative opinion because they also sell Windows laptops.

And as others have pointed out, Asus is free to do this in any case -- they just can't have access to google services. Microsoft should be up for this; after all, if Amazon has the technical chops to run a third-party app store, surely Microsoft... oh, wait.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 09:20 · Score: 0

Microsoft have nothing to do with this. This is Vendors trying to leverage both, If it was up to Microsoft they would be pushing for them to drop Android from their product range entirely. Face it, Google are Evil fucks now, actually they always have been, just people are starting to see it clearly.
Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 10:20 · Score: 0

What the fuck stupid nonsense are you going on about? Is the Google dick so far up your asshole that it has poked your eyes out and made you blind?
Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 11:10 · Score: 0

Another idiot gSheep apologist. Sorry that was redundant.

Re:The delay is almost certainly on technical grou by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 09:54 · Score: 0

Oh please.

The surface pro is full Windows 8 and too expensive for consumers.

Full Windows 8 tablets can now be had for less than $300. Soon android will be relegated back to cellphones and no-name vending machine tablets with settings in kanji where it belongs. Who the hell would pay $300 for an android tablet when you can get one with a real OS for the same or less now? I never will again.

Google apps are proprietary. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 10:16 · Score: 0

How many fucking idiots does it take to understand that Android is open, but the Google proprietary apps aren't. If Asus wants to put Android and Windows on their laptop then go ahead and do it. If you want to put the Google proprietary apps on it then you ask Google for permission.

Re:Google apps are proprietary. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 10:55 · Score: 0

No. The fucking idiot is you. ASUS is a member of OHA. They can't even use Android without the Google Apps. That would be a fork which is forbidden for OHA members. Android is not open. It's pseudo-open.

/r by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 10:17 · Score: 0

And you should have added the /r tag to indicate you're a retard.

Re:/r by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 10:32 · Score: 0

You forgot to add the /d tag to indicate you're a douchebag.

Fuck Microshat by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 10:29 · Score: 0

No, desperate is paying 10 Billion+ (7.5 Billion + Billions in loans they'll eat) for Nokia's device division and 30,000 extra employee's that add nothing to the bottom line. It's going to be glorious seeing how this stink goes down.

Re:The dual boot is stupid for a consumer device. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 11:33 · Score: 0

"a laptop-tablet hybrid that can instantly switch between Android and Windows 8.1"

Reminds me of those powermac hybrids of the nineties that had intel harware (I think). I only used it once, but it was like a KVM where you pressed some combo and it instantly switched to the other running OS.
Sadly, even in 1998 the Windows side of the equation was ran on 3.1. The MacOS was 7, which was one version behind the 8.5 already out that year.

Dual booting is a royal pain because it's time consuming and requires tweaks to be less isolationist than the default. It feels like unplugging a QWERTY keyboard to plug a DVORAK one in when all you want is a single function only found in one of them. Now, having an ability to instantly switch a modern version of Windows with Linux, and perhaps a shared clipboard and File integration would be golden (a-la Virtual PC, but without the emulated overhead).

/sh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 13:15 · Score: 0

You forgot to add the /sh tag to indicate you're a shit stain.

Re:/sh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 14:39 · Score: 0

Shame your mother forgot to use birth control.
Re:/sh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 19:47 · Score: 0

Too bad your mother couldn't because she was being held in the basement for 20 years by your grandfather, who forcefully impregnated her dozens of times. Also, your father/grandfather's name was Hitler.

Re:The delay is almost certainly on technical grou by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 13:22 · Score: 0

Actually, most of then don't have Google Play because they aren't licensed by Google. But, thanks for being a shill.

LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 13:30 · Score: 0

It's amusing that you think Windows 8 on tablets are going to sell. People have been leaving Windows in droves to get away from that virus, malware and ransomware laden OS.

Microshat Shill Alert by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 13:46 · Score: 0

What we have here is a Microshat Shill that's on a whole new level of shilling. Given all of the truly evil shit Microsoft has performed throughout all of the years, all of the companies they've sabotaged and stolen from, all of the shill corporations they've created and funded to push their FUD and agenda and all of money they've funneled into SCO to try and kill Linux you have the stupidity to accuse Google of doing "truly evil shit" for scanning public books of which their were exonerated from.
What a truly worthless piece of shit you must be.

Re:Google apps are proprietary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 14:28 · Score: 0

What a fucking retard you must be. Do you even know what forking is? ASUS can put AOSP on their laptop and add their own services on top of it if they wish. What they cannot do is start modifying the code base to make it incompatible with Android.

But then, you MS shills are all about the FUD, aren't ya.

Reply to Comment by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 15:55 · Score: 0

i have a chinese tablet with android and google store

Re:The dual boot is stupid for a consumer device. by Blaskowicz · 2014-03-09 18:46 · Score: 1

Windows 8 is "dual OS" already, running on the same NT kernel but using the "multiple personalities" feature I believe, that NT has had from the beginning. You have the desktop with a file manager and regular applications that have a "File Edit View.." menu, and the cell phone like interface and you switch between the two.
Windows 8 + Android, which runs *not dual booted* but at the same time, should rather be called a "Triple OS".

As for the market need, it should be useful for those zillion specific apps for your town's bus and train schedules, ordering stuff in a supermarket's web store, connecting to some local government/agency/social service etc.
This stuff is invariably for iOS and Android, nothing else.. For a US example, the IRS has an app for both but not a Metro app (maybe you DON'T want to keep up with the IRS or have the IRS keep up with you by means of tablet computer, it's only an example ;) )

So great!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-09 22:18 · Score: 0

If Asus's so interested in allowing users to choose what operating system they want, I'm sure they will be opening their all-in-one/desktop computers to run other operating systems than windows 8 by default. Don't you think?

Why would you? by Neil+Boekend · 2014-03-09 22:42 · Score: 1

Why would you want to run Android on a I386 processor? They may have a little more raw processing power, but they have a far higher energy footprint and not all apps (if any) will work on it.
There is a nice sentence in the specs:

By offering both operating systems, ASUS provides users the ability to run supported Android applications and a vast array of native Windows applications.

The number of supported Android apps will be limited unless they equip Android with an emulator, which costs some of the gained processing power.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

Re:Why would you? by Blaskowicz · 2014-03-10 03:40 · Score: 1

The new Intels (call it Atom, Silvermont or Bay Trail) are incredibly power efficient and advanced (22nm FinFET) while at the same time ARM got more power hungry than before - if you want to use Cortex A15. So I don't think we have to care very much.

Apple Insider by ThatsNotPudding · 2014-03-09 23:39 · Score: 1

aka Kettle Monthly with an article shaming pots.

Google controls as much as Apple does by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-10 00:08 · Score: 0

I am no more impressed with Google then Apple in opening up their ecosystem. If you don't believe me, just take a look at a Chromebook and tell me Google is open about
Chrome OS? They could not be more closed if they tried. In the Chromebook example Google is worse then Apple in locking out choice.
But my own observation of a duel boot Android vs Windows 8 device. I just can't see the usefulness of it. Other then the argument that a 2 in 1 type device could run Android better on the tablet part of the device and Windows 8 on a notebook side. Even that is a stretch given the atrociously bad Windows 8 duel user interface.
I still am not sure what users would want such a mess of a device that really does not work that well together?

Rambling by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-10 01:24 · Score: 0

I think the general view is that the reason for selling a combination Android/Windows tablet is to benefit Microsoft whose table offerings haven't done very well. I completely understand Google's point of view, why help Microsoft? That would be (and is on the desktop) Microsoft's stance. How many dual boot PC does Microsoft allow on the desktop (secure boot)? How many dual office suites does Microsoft allow on the desktop? How many dual browser offerings does Microsoft allow on the desktop?

This is the only area in which Microsoft is in favor of open platforms and cooperation. Google should look to see what they get out of a product that allows their competition to share and potentially co-op a platform. Personally, I've never had luck dual booting Windows with anything. Seems like Windows doesn't cleanly let go of devices. Admittedly, that was a while ago and MS might have gotten better about, but I haven't bothered to put in the extra effort it takes to test it out.

How you define 'evil' ... by fygment · 2014-03-10 01:39 · Score: 1

... determines how you define 'not doing evil'. Google is just a big powerful corporation like Microsoft, Apple, etc. They do not care about anything but the 'bottom line'.

In the corporate 'hierarchy of needs', 'profit' is the base need that _must_ be satisfied above all else.

--
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.

Don't be evil by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-10 01:41 · Score: 0

just stop

Blue Stacks by pebear · 2014-03-10 05:38 · Score: 1

You want a machine that does Windows and Android? Blue Stacks, or put Linux on your box and hook right into Android market and still have a KVM with Windows 8.1 and blue stacks. This is the 21st Century you can have your cake and eat it too.

--
Paul E. Bahre

Google have right by zisel · 2014-03-11 23:18 · Score: 1

Google have valid reason in doing that since android is bought by Google.

We need to run debian directly on phones! by anwyn · 2014-03-14 08:33 · Score: 1

We need to get rid of both android and microsoft on our phones. We should be able to run any package in debian's massive repositories. Down with app stores. Up with repositories.

We need to circumvent any charming little backdoors on the modem like the replicant people just discovered. We need to run end-to-end encryption on our phones, without fear of backdoors and NSLs!

A free operating system like GNU/Linux on our phones is our only hope for security.

Slashdot Mirror

Google Blocking Asus's Android-Windows "Duet"?

194 comments