Google explains why it stopped Acer's Aliyun smartphone launch

[Richteralan]

o So now most people side with Chinese pirates?

[+Fahim S. MVC]

o So now most people side with Chinese pirates?

Excuse me for my ignorance - Chinese pirates?

[evo_spook]

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.

Wierd Boz, you being a bit of a hypocrite, if Apple used the fact they develop the OS as a fact they can keep a tight reign on it your the first to complain and smash then for not being OPEN like google.

[FloatingFatMan]

Excuse me for my ignorance - Chinese pirates?

Pretty sure he's referring to this.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-confirmed-to-be-distributing-pirated-android-apps-many-from-another-pirate-site/

Acer need to step a away from this OS.

[remixedcat]

The name doesn't look very trustworthy to me....

[+Fahim S. MVC]

Pretty sure he's referring to this.

http://www.androidpo...er-pirate-site/

Acer need to step a away from this OS.

Ok - thanks for explaining

[Growled Member]

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).

Yeah, I've always been annoyed with Google for that. Maybe some of the truly open OSes like FirefoxOS and Ubuntu will remedy that.

[BajiRav]

so much being "open" then

When was Android actually open? The OS is useless unless you have apps and you can't get Android apps unless you are in bed with Google. You can't contribute to Android unless you are in bed with Google.

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

this.

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.

bull****. This is not about consumers. This is about Google.

[ichi]

When was Android actually open? The OS is useless unless you have apps and you can't get Android apps unless you are in bed with Google. You can't contribute to Android unless you are in bed with Google.

If Android wasn't open (to some extent, that is, the AOSP) you wouldn't have stuff like CyanogenMod.

Still, while AOSP is open the whole Android product with Google's services is not, that much is clear. Whether AOSP alone is enough to build your product is another issue, and that's certainly hard if you are buiding smartphones or tablets (although you could try to pull an Amazon or make an arrangement with Amazon to use their services).

If your product was a media center you could do with AOSP and alternative markets like Amazon or GetJar for extra apps, though.

[BajiRav]

If Android wasn't open (to some extent, that is, the AOSP) you wouldn't have stuff like CyanogenMod.

Still, while AOSP is open the whole Android product with Google's services is not, that much is clear. Whether AOSP alone is enough to build your product is another issue, and that's certainly hard if you are buiding smartphones or tablets (although you could try to pull an Amazon or make an arrangement with Amazon to use their services).

If your product was a media center you could do with AOSP and alternative markets like Amazon or GetJar for extra apps, though.

If Android was really open, Google couldn't have pulled the Honeycomb stunt (for whatever reason). I don't really follow its development but AFAIK there are no outside developers contributing to it (beyond obviously the Linux part of it). It is merely open source to some extent.

[ichi]

If Android was really open, Google couldn't have pulled the Honeycomb stunt (for whatever reason). I don't really follow its development but AFAIK there are no outside developers contributing to it (beyond obviously the Linux part of it). It is merely open source to some extent.

When it comes to source code, being open doesn't necessarily imply that it's also community developed.

It's basically an OSS project with a closed development process, which still falls under OSS even though it's not that usual. What they did with Honeycomb could be done with any other OSS project: you are only required to distribute the source to the recipients of the binaries, which they did.

[BajiRav]

When it comes to source code, being open doesn't necessarily imply that it's also community developed.

It's basically an OSS project with a closed development process, which still falls under OSS even though it's not that usual. What they did with Honeycomb could be done with any other OSS project: you are only required to distribute the source to the recipients of the binaries, which they did.

It doesn't necessarily mean but that is the general perception* when something is termed open. Google likes to play the Open card with Android and lot of their stuff and never gets called out on it.

The bold part of your post, I am surprised to read that. My impression is that GPL requires you to always release whatever you do (although I think the whole Android is not covered by GPL).

[ichi]

It doesn't necessarily mean but that is the general perception* when something is termed open. Google likes to play the Open card with Android and lot of their stuff and never gets called out on it.

It's the general perception because usually the most obvious benefit of an OSS project is getting contributions, but you might not want contributions and/or third parties questioning your decisions during the development stages.

The bold part of your post, I am surprised to read that. My impression is that GPL requires you to always release whatever you do (although I think the whole Android is not covered by GPL).

Only to the recipients of the software (and hence only if you distribute the software, if I modify a GPL application for my own personal use I'm not required to release anything for anyone).

If, say, I got a contract to develop some OS software for X company, I'd only be required to give the source to X since they'd be the only ones getting the binaries.

[Praetor]

You mean the total 15 lines?

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

yes but Acer wanted the both worlds and being a member of OHA that's not possible; the question in here is that Aliyun is a ripoff of Android (even the Marketplace is) so if Acer released that phone it could be in hot waters.

[FloatingFatMan]

yes but Acer wanted the both worlds and being a member of OHA that's not possible; the question in here is that Aliyun is a ripoff of Android (even the Marketplace is) so if Acer released that phone it could be in hot waters.

I think they're getting frustrated that they can't release an proper "Google Experience" device in China, so it precipitated them considering this clone. However, the piracy issue on its market is a serious concern, one that Acer needs to keep the hell away from, big time.

If Google sorted out the Chinese market so Google Experience devices can be sold there, this problem wouldn't be near so bad.

[soldier1st]

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

Don't you mean were and not was? adding was instead of were makes your sentence almost non comprehensible.

Anyways, Java is just a programming language and a good one i might add imo.

I think they're getting frustrated that they can't release an proper "Google Experience" device in China, so it precipitated them considering this clone. However, the piracy issue on its market is a serious concern, one that Acer needs to keep the hell away from, big time.

If Google sorted out the Chinese market so Google Experience devices can be sold there, this problem wouldn't be near so bad.

Piracy will always be an issue.

[FloatingFatMan]

Piracy will always be an issue.

Yes, but this "new" OS is built on it from the very start. It's own built in market carries mostly pirated and illegally modified versions of commercial software without the publishers knowledge. Read the article I posted.