Google explains why it stopped Acer's Aliyun smartphone launch

[techbeck]

Earlier today there was some strange drama as Acer abruptly cancelled the launch of a smartphone. The phone was running the Aliyun OS, which is created by Alibaba and which Google says is actually a "non-compatible [version] of Android." At the time, Acer said that Google had "expressed concerns" about the launch, and now Google has come forward to explain its side of the story in a statement:

Compatibility is at the heart of the Android ecosystem and ensures a consistent experience for developers, manufacturers and consumers. Non-compatible versions of Android, like Aliyun, weaken the ecosystem. All members of the Open Handset Alliance have committed to building one Android platform and to not ship non-compatible Android devices. This does not however, keep OHA members from participating in competing ecosystems.

This is the first time in recent memory (if ever) that we've seen membership in the OHA actually have repercussions. To date, it has appeared to be a feel-good consortium of companies that ostensibly contribute to Android. However, now we see that membership has meaning beyond feel-good PR, and Google is not being shy about stopping fragmentation where it can within the Android ecosystem. Amazon is not a member of the OHA, by the way, and therefore there's nothing to stop it from creating its own Android variant that powers the Kindle Fire.

The situation is a bit murky, as the extent to which the Aliyun OS uses technologies from Android is a little unclear. When it announced the OS a year ago, Alibaba took pains to point out that the Android app compatibility feature came from its own work, not the "Dalvik" virtual machine from Android: "The cloud OS is the result of three years of development and uses AliCloud's self-developed distributed file system and virtual machine; the cloud OS is also fully compatible with Android-based applications." In a statement to the WSJ today, however, Alibaba stepped back from those claims, saying that "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." Alibaba reiterated that sentiment in a statement to The Verge, "Aliyun OS is built on open-source Linux and is not part of the Android ecosystem."

Whatever the technical or political justifications, canceling a phone launch while journalists are en-route is a fairly serious flub and both Google and Acer will need to spend more time working out what happened here. Google may yet have to resort to such heavy-handed tactics again to help keep Android fragmentation in check, but as Amazon has shown, some companies don't need Google's cooperation to take advantage of the OS it created.

Update: Andy Rubin has posted a fuller explanation of its stance on Android compatibility on the official Android blog, although he does not directly address this particular drama, Rubin does say that the OHA hopes to create a "virtuous cycle" of development for the platform and that each member of the OHA "contributes to and builds one Android ecosystem ? not a bunch of incompatible versions."

Update 2: Andy Rubin minced fewer words in his posting on Google+, where he flatly claims that Aliyun "incorporates the Android runtime and was apparently derived from Android."

http://www.theverge....-aliyun-android

Figured there was more to this story. Acer is a member of the OHA and as such, there are rules they need to follow. They signed an agreement with Google and Acer and Google are still talking and working through this.

[evo_spook]

Update 2: Andy Rubin minced fewer words in his posting on Google+, where he flatly claims that Aliyun "incorporates the Android runtime and was apparently derived from Android."

Didn't seem to be a issue for Google when they was borrowing from Java

[Boz]

http://www.theverge....-aliyun-android

Figured there was more to this story. Acer is a member of the OHA and as such, there are rules they need to follow. They signed an agreement with Google and Acer and Google are still talking and working through this.

Yep.. here's the reason

"When it announced the OS a year ago, Alibaba took pains to point out that the Android app compatibility feature came from its own work, not the "Dalvik" virtual machine from Android:"

So you can't use Android name and create your own thing, especially when it's not using the same compatibility layers and virtual machine as stock Android.

Google is 200% right here.. This is why it's great that Google is the one developing Android.. so they can protect it from stuff like this.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

Update 2: Andy Rubin minced fewer words in his posting on Google+, where he flatly claims that Aliyun "incorporates the Android runtime and was apparently derived from Android."

Didn't seem to be a issue for Google when they was borrowing from Java

You mean the total 15 lines?

They could of gone the Amazon route, took android, did there own independent marketplace and launch it.

[guru]

Yep.. here's the reason

"When it announced the OS a year ago, Alibaba took pains to point out that the Android app compatibility feature came from its own work, not the "Dalvik" virtual machine from Android:"

So you can't use Android name and create your own thing, especially when it's not using the same compatibility layers and virtual machine as stock Android.

Google is 200% right here.. This is why it's great that Google is the one developing Android.. so they can protect it from stuff like this.

so much being "open" then

[techbeck]

so much being "open" then

Huh? Google is open. Acer just made their own OS based off of Android. Something all members of the OHA agreed NOT to do. Amazon can get away with it because they are not a member of the OHA. However, OHA members can make WP8 phones and that is not a problem. Its just competing Android OS that the OHA forbids and that all members agreed to.

So if Acer wants to do their own thing, then they shouldn't of joined the OHA.

[guru]

Huh? Google is open. Acer just made their own OS based off of Android. Something all members of the OHA agreed NOT to do. Amazon can get away with it because they are not a member of the OHA.

Acer didnt make the OS. Alibaba did. Acer was just the hardware vendor. The phone that google got cancelled was never branded as an android phone.

[techbeck]

Acer didnt make the OS. Alibaba did. Acer was just the hardware vendor. The phone that google got cancelled was never branded as an android phone.

Doesn't matter. Acer was going to release a device based off of android and is still against what they agreed to. So Acer was violating their agreement with Google.

[Vice]

Acer needs better lawyers.

[techbeck]

Acer needs better lawyers.

Google and Acer are talking about this still. One says its not based off android, the other says it is. I'm sure we will here more about this.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

so much being "open" then

Android has never been Open. This has always been nothing more than a marketing line from Google. This isn't the only time Google has crafted contracts that remove all the "open" features of Android from an OEM. They have always used their Google branded apps to tie the hands of their OEM partners. What I find the most comical about all of this is Google uses this pressure to twist OEM arms when it comes to what devices they release, but they never use it to ensure end users get updates all the while claiming they care about users and updates, among other things.

These contracts came to light in the trial between Google and Skyhook from before Motorola was purchased by Google. Google banned the use of Skyhook WiFi based AGPS system because it wouldn't allow Google to get user WiFi data.

http://searchengineland.com/skyhook-case-giving-google-pr-headache-77870

[George P Global Moderator]

Android has never been Open. This has always been nothing more than a marketing line from Google. This isn't the only time Google has crafted contracts that remove all the "open" features of Android from an OEM. They have always used their Google branded apps to tie the hands of their OEM partners. What I find the most comical about all of this is Google uses this pressure to twist OEM arms when it comes to what devices they release, but they never use it to ensure end users get updates all the while claiming they care about users and updates, among other things.

These contracts came to light in the trial between Google and Skyhook from before Motorola was purchased by Google. Google banned the use of Skyhook WiFi based AGPS system because it wouldn't allow Google to get user WiFi data.

http://searchenginel...-headache-77870

Uh oh, don't bring reason and facts into this, you crazy? /s

[techbeck]

Android has never been Open. This has always been nothing more than a marketing line from Google. This isn't the only time Google has crafted contracts that remove all the "open" features of Android from an OEM. They have always used their Google branded apps to tie the hands of their OEM partners. What I find the most comical about all of this is Google uses this pressure to twist OEM arms when it comes to what devices they release, but they never use it to ensure end users get updates all the while claiming they care about users and updates, among other things.

Google isnt forcing anyone to sign contracts. If Acer wanted to do their own thing with a different OS, then they should of did what Amazon did. And if companies do not like Google's terms and conditions, then they can do what Nokia did and go WP only.

[Coolicer]

What I don't understand from this, how can Google talk about Aliyun fragmenting Android, when it's not compatible with and not branded as Android?

I don't care is it was derived from the Android code-base or the Linux kernel or Linux kernel whilst using Android-specific patches that live in the mainline tree now.

If it doesn't support Android, as Alibaba now claiming that its OS is not compatible with Android applications or its marketplace*, then there is no "fragmentation" of Android

assuming that the definition of "Android fragmentation" is the same as what all the tech blogs are always using.

But perhaps I'm overlooking something here.

(* I've read the part about their cloudservices being compatible with the Android framework, but now they've retracted that statement. So I assume it no longer is)

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Google isnt forcing anyone to sign contracts. If Acer wanted to do their own thing with a different OS, then they should of did what Amazon did. And if companies do not like Google's terms and conditions, then they can do what Nokia did and go WP only.

Actually they are, if they don't sign the contracts then they won't get Google Play (Android Market), Google Maps, Gmail, or a host of other apps. You can't really sell an Android phone without those apps.

Amazon is a strong exception because they have built an entire ecosystem outside of Google. Acer can't easily do the same thing and if they tried I'm sure Android users would shun them for not using Google's apps.

So don't pretend that the Google apps don't matter to Android users.

[techbeck]

Actually they are, if they don't sign the contracts then they won't get Google Play (Android Market), Google Maps, Gmail, or a host of other apps. You can't really sell an Android phone without those apps.

Google did not force Acer to sign a contract. Google did not force Acer, or any other company, to create Android devices and agree to their terms. If companies dont like Google's terms and conditions, they could of created Windows devices or even Black Berry devices.

So don't pretend that the Google apps don't matter to Android users.

Never even implied or said this.

No one's fault for not reading the contract but Acer's. And we shall see what happens since Google is saying one thing, Acer says another.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Google did not force Acer to sign a contract. Google did not force Acer, or any other company, to create Android devices and agree to their terms. If companies dont like Google's terms and conditions, they could of created Windows devices or even Black Berry devices.

My point was not if Acer needs to make Android devices or not. My point simply was Android devices are not open as Google claims. If it were Google wouldn't have these backhanded contracts in the first place.

[guru]

Doesn't matter. Acer was going to release a device based off of android and is still against what they agreed to. So Acer was violating their agreement with Google.

then google shouldn't claim Android to be open if they are going force handset members in a "OHA" ironically named open handset alliance, which then locks its partners out of Android forks.

[Coolicer]

Google did not force Acer to sign a contract. Google did not force Acer, or any other company, to create Android devices and agree to their terms. If companies dont like Google's terms and conditions, they could of created Windows devices or even Black Berry devices.

I don't think you're understanding _exactly_ what you're saying. Sure nobody is forced to do anything, but if you really want to sell your Android powered device, you _have_ to agree to Google's terms and pricing.

There's a logical fallacy here, the whole point was that you want to make Android devices, not BB or WP and therefore you're forced to adhere to Google's conditions and pricing. Plus BB doesn't license their OS as far as I know and WP

wasn't an option when Acer went on-board with El-Goog.

If you wish to create a "real" Android device, the one with proper Google branding, eco-system and everything, you have to sign that contract and pay the price.

Also, I really would have liked if anyone was kind enough to give my first post a constructive reply.

[Boz]

Android has never been Open. This has always been nothing more than a marketing line from Google. This isn't the only time Google has crafted contracts that remove all the "open" features of Android from an OEM. They have always used their Google branded apps to tie the hands of their OEM partners. What I find the most comical about all of this is Google uses this pressure to twist OEM arms when it comes to what devices they release, but they never use it to ensure end users get updates all the while claiming they care about users and updates, among other things.

These contracts came to light in the trial between Google and Skyhook from before Motorola was purchased by Google. Google banned the use of Skyhook WiFi based AGPS system because it wouldn't allow Google to get user WiFi data.

http://searchenginel...-headache-77870

Listen..let's make something clear.. Android IS open.. you can go take it and make ANYTHING you want with it. Amazon is proof. So let's stop with this Android is not open malarky.

The reason Google is against this is because the other OS IS using Android and Acer is trying to use that OS and continue using Google's services. That's not gonna happen.

Google's services ARE NOT open. So when OHA was created every member agreed not to branch out with alternate Android OSs and use the official builds because that's the only way it will guarantee a healthy and compatible ecosystem.

Acer can abandon OHA and go use Android and build whatever they want. The downside for them will be no access to official Google services that are supported on Android.

Google made their services that give value. You can use Android and do whatever the hell you want. Amazon did it and nobody is against them but even Amazon can't take Android and branch it out. The license specifically stands that you can use Android for whatever you want but you have to build on top of the foundation making Android apps compatible with your eco-system. If you don't comply you can't use the code.

This seems like a very reasonable thing. It's in the interest of consumers.

[techbeck]

This isnt about whether or not Google is open or anything else. This is about an agreement between Google/Acer and that is it.

I don't think you're understanding _exactly_ what you're saying. Sure nobody is forced to do anything, but if you really want to sell your Android powered device, you _have_ to agree to Google's terms and pricing.

I know exactly what I am saying. But again, Acer agreed to certain terms/conditions which they may/may not have violated. Acer and Google have open lines of communication on this issue and I am sure it will be worked out.

The reason Google is against this is because the other OS IS using Android and Acer is trying to use that OS and continue using Google's services. That's not gonna happen.

This is what is in dispute ATM. Each side is saying something different.

[Boz]

Amazon is a strong exception because they have built an entire ecosystem outside of Google. Acer can't easily do the same thing and if they tried I'm sure Android users would shun them for not using Google's apps.

So don't pretend that the Google apps don't matter to Android users.

What does "strong exception" means.. You are just contradicting your claims that Android is not open.. So the bottom line is.. It's not that Android is not open, it's that Google's SERVICES are incentive for Android OEMs to use pure Android as it was intended.

Yes... that's true, but it's not blackmail at all. Google has built great products. Why in the hell would they want to give it away? There are alternatives, you can use Android, and use alternate services for maps, app store etc..

There are no "exceptions". You either go the easy route and you comply with requests from Google if you want to use their services, OR you can totally freely go take Android, make your own services and agreements with 3rd party solutions and create your own ecosystem, app store etc. Just like Amazon did.

I don't see the problem at all. You are just making one out of nothing.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

What does "strong exception" means.. You are just contradicting your claims that Android is not open.. So the bottom line is.. It's not that Android is not open, it's that Google's SERVICES are incentive for Android OEMs to use pure Android as it was intended.

Yes... that's true, but it's not blackmail at all. Google has built great products. Why in the hell would they want to give it away? There are alternatives, you can use Android, and use alternate services for maps, app store etc..

Amazon is easily a strong exception because there is no strong Android foothold in tablets and Amazon built their tablet to expand their Kindle platform more than anything else. The Kindle Fire, which I own, is without question a Kindle tablet. Regular phone OEMs don't have the online ecosystem that Amazon has nor could they build one. To suggest such is foolish.

This is extended further by Google having phone carriers sign on to OHA as well which prevents phone OEMs from selling Android phones to the carrier that fail to meet OHA contractual terms...

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html

I have never suggested that Google shouldn't be compensated for building Android. I don't own Google shares or Acer shares so I really could care less how much Acer has to pay Google and vice versa, but I'm not against any business being compensated for their products. I'm a business person for a reason ;)

That being said, my point is simply that Android isn't purely open. Consumers have the image of Android being purely open as this is how Google has marketed the platform. The reality is Android is partially open. It isn't anymore open than Windows Phone is for an OEM or the Windows Mobile that existed at its launch.

Anyway, my point is simply to offer additional information to others in this thread. People are asking for "more information" as "there is more to the story" and I'm simply showing that this is a common Google tactic. You can see the facts as you choose to, but the fact is Google places strict contractual terms on its OEM partners.

I just wished they used that pressure to get Android users updates...

[techbeck]

That being said, my point is simply that Android isn't purely open. Consumers have the image of Android being purely open as this is how Google has marketed the platform. The reality is Android is partially open. It isn't anymore open than Windows Phone is for an OEM or the Windows Mobile that existed at its launch.

Thanks for clarifying since you originally stated that android has never been open.

I, for one, never thought Android was completely 100 percent open. Nothing is and they need to protect some things. But they have encouraged, even publicly, the hacking/modding of Android.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Thanks for clarifying since you originally stated that android has never been open.

I, for one, never thought Android was completely 100 percent open. Nothing is and they need to protect some things. But they have encouraged, even publicly, the hacking/modding of Android.

That is the beauty of a clean discussion :)

To me open means purely open and anything less should be prefixed as such and was why I worded my statement in the manner I did. I've always been angry at Google for distorting the definition of open for users due to them marketing something other than the reality (marketing pure open while practicing a definition of open not that different from Apple with Mac OS, which we don't consider open).