10 ms·

Google threatened Acer with Android excommunication

68 points by headShrinker 14y ago

stephengillie 14y ago
Here we see one way in which Android is very, very valuable to Google.
ajross 14y ago
The details are hard to puzzle out. Apparently Alibaba was using "their own OS" (my guess is it's an Android fork a-la Kindle, but that's pure speculation) and Google told Acer (the hardware OEM) to kill it or they'd lose their Android license (for what products it isn't clear -- it seems unlikely that existing products are licensed under contracts that can be revoked like that). That kind of behavior certainly can be anticompetetive if it's preventing the entrance of new products into the market. If my guess is right and "Aliyun" is an Android fork, then cry me a river -- if Acer wants to sell an official Android device they shouldn't expect to make money selling gray market clones on the side. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if their contracts included a clause covering exactly this (i.e. ship only official Android if you ship any Android at all). But yes: if Alibaba is really trying to sell a home-grown OS, and Google is trying to kill it, then that's bad.
- jemeshsu 14y ago
  Aliyun is not a fork of Android. It is China's home grown cloud based OS based on Linux. http://www.techinasia.com/alibaba-aliyun-investing-mobile-os-beat-ios-android/ http://www.techinasia.com/alibaba-aliyun-investing-mobile-os... The name Aliyun: Ali is Alibaba, Yun is cloud in Chinese.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Not to be too doubtful -- but I don't see anything in that article that says this isn't an Android fork. The fact that they are spending lots of money on development and want to compete with Android doesn't mean they didn't start with it as a base. Android core is open source, well tested, very widely deployed, and works great. Honestly if Alibaba wanted to make a mobile OS play as a new company and didn't start with it I would be very surprised.
  - randallu 14y ago
    "Binary Compatible with Android" sounds a lot like "a fork of Android"...
- onetimeuse001 14y ago
  If my guess is right and "Aliyun" is an Android fork, then cry me a river -- if Acer wants to sell an official Android device they shouldn't expect to make money selling gray market clones on the side. Lots of speculation from all of us, but assuming that the story is true, you are wrong. First Google says that Android is open source and free to improve so what's the big deal? Secondly, Google holds a large percentage of the-mobile market through the official Android so anti-trust is listening. A clear case of anti-competitive behavior since Google would not be able to control the non-official forks.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Indeed, what's the big deal? Alibaba is free to improve Android, and they did. Google is free to sell (or not sell) their non-free additions to Android to whoever they want. They presumably choose not to sell to companies producing unbranded Android forks. Alibaba needs to pick an unencumbered hardware partner if they want to go down this road. Amazon (and whoever the Kindle OEM is) made it work, so it's not like it's impossible. (Edit for clarity: again, this is presupposing that Alibaba is shipping modified Google-written software without a contract with Google. It's also presupposing that there are manufacturers -- like the Kindle's -- willing/able to take business making unbranded Android devices. If either becomes untrue, then this is definitely anticompetitive.)
    - chris_mahan 14y ago
      Except that a software license can hardly be called open source if you require a contract from the writer in order to use the software.
      - ajross 14y ago
        This is backwards. Google's closed apps aren't open source. Acer needs a license to use them. Alibaba can use whatever it wants, they just can't get Acer to manufacture a device containing their (closed-source!) modifications to Android without putting Acer's existing software licenses in jeopardy. If Alibaba's product can't reach market, then that's a problem. But given that many unlicensed Android-derived devices are in production right now, I don't see the problem. They picked the wrong OEM (or Acer misjudged its relationship with Google, or both). Oops.
- Zigurd 14y ago
  If Alibaba's allegation is true (as opposed to a more mundane reason, like a new OS is too crashy to launch), then it is a pretty big deal. Threats like that would make Android a lot less open if you have to choose between your relationship with Google and using AOSP. There are many good reasons to impose such an agreement: The more OEM "customize" Android phones, the most difficult it is to keep them up to date, and that, as another current story points out, leads to unpatched vulnerabilities hanging out there longer than they should. But, if Acer and Alibaba were making a different product, with a different ecosystem, where vulnerabilities would not be blamed on Google, that's not a good thing. That will have Amazon wondering if their ODMs are in line for a threat like that.
capo 14y ago
Allegedly...
Karunamon 14y ago
Now if only they'd wield this power in relation to OEM's who seem intent on crapping up good phones with horrible addon software (MOTOBlur, I'm looking at you...)
- Steko 14y ago
  The idea that only pure android phones are worthy and that carrier ui layers are the only thing holding them back is silly. Many people like them and ICS replicated many of the things from carrier skins for this reason. Telling partners they can't differentiate is radically hypocritical and likely would just drive more to fork Android.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    ..carrier ui layers are the only thing holding them back is silly There's also market fragmentation, but I'd say carrier dumbassery is almost a worse problem. This "differentiation" or "branding" or "experience" or whatever buzzword-compliant term chosen to describe it almost always makes the device less useful and less functional. Not just by being ugly, slapdash-looking "let's slap our identity all over this" abominations, but by harming performance. The canonical example was MOTOBlur on the Droid 2. The hardware was decent, it was an incremental upgrade over the original Droid, but it's made almost unusable by the preloaded Moto garbage. Compare a Droid 2 stock vs a Droid 2 running the AOSP version of the same Android release and try to say they're even remotely comparable. Worse battery life, sluggish performance.. Jellybean all on its own is a beautiful system. A fantasy of mine is that, for the next major release, Google enforces the kind of UI requirements being imposed by Microsoft - how much carrier dickery do you think will appear on Windows phones?
    - nilsbunger 14y ago
      The OEMs and carriers want to differentiate in SW too, not just in hardware. They don't want to be dumb pipes or just the "boxes" that android ships in. They happen to suck at SW and screw up the android experience. Without the opportunity to mess with it, Android wouldn't be as attractive to them.
barista 14y ago
So much for Google touting android being open...
- Kylekramer 14y ago
  Source code is still there. Acer still could have used it. Assuming this is true, Google threatened Acer with removing access to the always closed source Google apps and Play Store. It is a hardball business move and not exactly consistent with the shiny happy feel good part of the open source philosophy, but doesn't really make Android less open.
  - kevingadd 14y ago
    Core parts of the Android experience not being open almost certainly makes Android less open.
    - wonderyak 14y ago
      Android != Google Apps. Amazon seems to be doing just fine with it, just as all the ROM developers have.
      - barista 14y ago
        Though Amazon never extracts any marketing mileage out of the openness of android. Google just sounds disingenuous here
        wonderyak 14y ago
        Why would they want to advertise Google or Android? They have a product to sell! Focus!
        drivebyacct2 14y ago
        Why? Why oh why do they sound disingenuous? AOSP is OSS. Google's proprietary apps, for their propreitary services (GMail, Google Calendar, Google Play), are not. Why d you so wrongly act like Google has to provide those applications? Especially if someone has forked Android to compete with traditional Android offerings?
ljoshua 14y ago
I thought one of the draws of Android was that no specific licensing was necessary to implement on a device? Can someone elaborate on why exactly Acer would need a contract to use Android?
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  Google apps: Gmail, Maps, Play Store, etc.
  - Create 14y ago
    freemail, OpenStreetMap, F-Droid etc.
    - andybak 14y ago
      Definitely equivalent but not always satisfactory equivalents.
      - Create 14y ago
        Acer has enough capital to make these toys in comparison. OSM was a satisfactory equivalent to AAPL -- to the point of deliberately not acknowledging it (ie. worth stealing). As for f-droid, with all the iFart App clones culled is a definite win for mental health epidemiology.
        magicalist 14y ago
        OSM was not sufficient for Apple. Their maps are based on a number of providers, including OSM but most especially TomTom. You're thinking of the iphoto maps that got everyone speculating in the first place. Most companies in this space have the capital to replace these apps, but not the will or the ability. You only have to look at the Android UIs they produce to see that you're really going to have to commit if you want to function as primary app provider for your phones. Most companies aren't willing to do this, or take forever and fail (poor meego...)
mtgx 14y ago
If they are using AOSP, they can use it without any license from Google I think. If they want Google's apps, then they need license from Google. If Google wants to standardize the ecosystem and is cracking down on these manufacturers who mess too much with Android then I'm 100% on Google's side. Google needs to be harder on these manufacturers for the good of the consumers, the ecosystem, and ultimately the manufacturers as well. What will the "Android ecosystem" become if they create bigger and bigger incompatibilities and make developers jobs that much harder? If manufacturers really wanted to customize their own OS, then they would never even try using WP8. And Acer is one of the WP8 licenses, too. So Acer wants their cake and eat it, too? Sorry, but no. Google needs to take actions against further fragmentation, and for removing any opportunities Microsoft might have with their more unified OS.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  > If they are using AOSP, they can use it without any license from Google I think. I believe they can use the OS, but I don't believe they'd be able to use the "Android" trademark and logo. They'd have to call it something else, which'd probably cut sales dramatically.
  - cube13 14y ago
    Does Google have a "Powered by Android" licensing scheme like what the Mozilla foundation has for Firefox's source?
    - mtgx 14y ago
      I doubt it, but I wish they did. I think the Chrome/Chromium model is perfect for a corporation wanting to use open source and give back, while in the same time keeping full control of their software. I wish Android worked like Chrome and Chromium. There should've been a version (Chromium-like) that manufacturers could use and do anything they wanted with it, and a version (Chrome-like) that could only be modified by Google alone, and be the only version Google actually promotes. They're sort of doing it with the "Google experience" Nexus devices, but that seems more like an afterthought more than something that was thought up from the beginning and as main strategy.
eevilspock 14y ago
I'm not sure if this story is reliable, but if it is, will HN users come down as hard on Google as it always does on Apple for being "draconian" and "anti-competitive"? [Not surprised this has already gotten downvoted. Anyone got a mirror?]
- esolyt 14y ago
  Perhaps people are tired of hearing the "HN is full of Apple haters" shit.
  - eevilspock 14y ago
    I'm with you. But what about being tired of the "I hate Apple" shit? I'd almost be for a total ban on anything that mentions "Apple" or "Android" from HN. I'll bet the site would improve 10-fold with no loss of useful info.
  - metatronscube 14y ago
    Its true for the most part, everyone here likes to think they are different from a community like Reddit or 4chan, but thats not really the case. If this had Apple in the headline instead of Google then im sure there would be a lot more heavily biased comments ready to jump to all sorts of conclusions with out anything resembling proof. This lot are just as biased as most of the die hard Apple haters from those communities. You know what im tired of hearing, is comments like "Apple never innovates", "Apple is due a fall" ..etc Oh and my favorite one is "The patent system needs reform" but thats all we ever hear from this community. Oh well, deal with it and move on I guess.
ravichhabra 14y ago
Speculation: Google starting from Jelly Bean (or after Jelly Bean), is going to give early source code access to OEM partners. If Acer is going to work on Aliyun some of those early access code could land into Aliyun, which Google does not want?
salem 14y ago
I'm assuming that "Android product cooperation and related technical authorization" means early access to source code for unreleased Android versions and ability to package and market Google products on the phone. That said, if Acer was making plans to work on a competing platform, which happened to be able to run android apps, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable move.
ConstantineXVI 14y ago
Back from the Skyhook incident, it came out that part of the license for the Google apps prevented Samsung from any action "that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android,"[0]. It would seem this clause still stands in the current agreements used by Google, and provided these accusations are true, would be Google's basis for giving Acer the boot. [0] http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la...

68 points by headShrinker 14y ago

Here we see one way in which Android is very, very valuable to Google.

The details are hard to puzzle out. Apparently Alibaba was using "their own OS" (my guess is it's an Android fork a-la Kindle, but that's pure speculation) and Google told Acer (the hardware OEM) to kill it or they'd lose their Android license (for what products it isn't clear -- it seems unlikely that existing products are licensed under contracts that can be revoked like that). That kind of behavior certainly can be anticompetetive if it's preventing the entrance of new products into the market. If my guess is right and "Aliyun" is an Android fork, then cry me a river -- if Acer wants to sell an official Android device they shouldn't expect to make money selling gray market clones on the side. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if their contracts included a clause covering exactly this (i.e. ship only official Android if you ship any Android at all). But yes: if Alibaba is really trying to sell a home-grown OS, and Google is trying to kill it, then that's bad.

jemeshsu 14y ago
Aliyun is not a fork of Android. It is China's home grown cloud based OS based on Linux. http://www.techinasia.com/alibaba-aliyun-investing-mobile-os-beat-ios-android/ http://www.techinasia.com/alibaba-aliyun-investing-mobile-os... The name Aliyun: Ali is Alibaba, Yun is cloud in Chinese.
- ajross 14y ago
  Not to be too doubtful -- but I don't see anything in that article that says this isn't an Android fork. The fact that they are spending lots of money on development and want to compete with Android doesn't mean they didn't start with it as a base. Android core is open source, well tested, very widely deployed, and works great. Honestly if Alibaba wanted to make a mobile OS play as a new company and didn't start with it I would be very surprised.
- randallu 14y ago
  "Binary Compatible with Android" sounds a lot like "a fork of Android"...
onetimeuse001 14y ago
If my guess is right and "Aliyun" is an Android fork, then cry me a river -- if Acer wants to sell an official Android device they shouldn't expect to make money selling gray market clones on the side. Lots of speculation from all of us, but assuming that the story is true, you are wrong. First Google says that Android is open source and free to improve so what's the big deal? Secondly, Google holds a large percentage of the-mobile market through the official Android so anti-trust is listening. A clear case of anti-competitive behavior since Google would not be able to control the non-official forks.
- ajross 14y ago
  Indeed, what's the big deal? Alibaba is free to improve Android, and they did. Google is free to sell (or not sell) their non-free additions to Android to whoever they want. They presumably choose not to sell to companies producing unbranded Android forks. Alibaba needs to pick an unencumbered hardware partner if they want to go down this road. Amazon (and whoever the Kindle OEM is) made it work, so it's not like it's impossible. (Edit for clarity: again, this is presupposing that Alibaba is shipping modified Google-written software without a contract with Google. It's also presupposing that there are manufacturers -- like the Kindle's -- willing/able to take business making unbranded Android devices. If either becomes untrue, then this is definitely anticompetitive.)
  - chris_mahan 14y ago
    Except that a software license can hardly be called open source if you require a contract from the writer in order to use the software.
    - ajross 14y ago
      This is backwards. Google's closed apps aren't open source. Acer needs a license to use them. Alibaba can use whatever it wants, they just can't get Acer to manufacture a device containing their (closed-source!) modifications to Android without putting Acer's existing software licenses in jeopardy. If Alibaba's product can't reach market, then that's a problem. But given that many unlicensed Android-derived devices are in production right now, I don't see the problem. They picked the wrong OEM (or Acer misjudged its relationship with Google, or both). Oops.
Zigurd 14y ago
If Alibaba's allegation is true (as opposed to a more mundane reason, like a new OS is too crashy to launch), then it is a pretty big deal. Threats like that would make Android a lot less open if you have to choose between your relationship with Google and using AOSP. There are many good reasons to impose such an agreement: The more OEM "customize" Android phones, the most difficult it is to keep them up to date, and that, as another current story points out, leads to unpatched vulnerabilities hanging out there longer than they should. But, if Acer and Alibaba were making a different product, with a different ecosystem, where vulnerabilities would not be blamed on Google, that's not a good thing. That will have Amazon wondering if their ODMs are in line for a threat like that.

capo 14y ago

Allegedly...

Karunamon 14y ago

Now if only they'd wield this power in relation to OEM's who seem intent on crapping up good phones with horrible addon software (MOTOBlur, I'm looking at you...)

Steko 14y ago
The idea that only pure android phones are worthy and that carrier ui layers are the only thing holding them back is silly. Many people like them and ICS replicated many of the things from carrier skins for this reason. Telling partners they can't differentiate is radically hypocritical and likely would just drive more to fork Android.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  ..carrier ui layers are the only thing holding them back is silly There's also market fragmentation, but I'd say carrier dumbassery is almost a worse problem. This "differentiation" or "branding" or "experience" or whatever buzzword-compliant term chosen to describe it almost always makes the device less useful and less functional. Not just by being ugly, slapdash-looking "let's slap our identity all over this" abominations, but by harming performance. The canonical example was MOTOBlur on the Droid 2. The hardware was decent, it was an incremental upgrade over the original Droid, but it's made almost unusable by the preloaded Moto garbage. Compare a Droid 2 stock vs a Droid 2 running the AOSP version of the same Android release and try to say they're even remotely comparable. Worse battery life, sluggish performance.. Jellybean all on its own is a beautiful system. A fantasy of mine is that, for the next major release, Google enforces the kind of UI requirements being imposed by Microsoft - how much carrier dickery do you think will appear on Windows phones?
  - nilsbunger 14y ago
    The OEMs and carriers want to differentiate in SW too, not just in hardware. They don't want to be dumb pipes or just the "boxes" that android ships in. They happen to suck at SW and screw up the android experience. Without the opportunity to mess with it, Android wouldn't be as attractive to them.

barista 14y ago

So much for Google touting android being open...

Kylekramer 14y ago
Source code is still there. Acer still could have used it. Assuming this is true, Google threatened Acer with removing access to the always closed source Google apps and Play Store. It is a hardball business move and not exactly consistent with the shiny happy feel good part of the open source philosophy, but doesn't really make Android less open.
- kevingadd 14y ago
  Core parts of the Android experience not being open almost certainly makes Android less open.
  - wonderyak 14y ago
    Android != Google Apps. Amazon seems to be doing just fine with it, just as all the ROM developers have.
    - barista 14y ago
      Though Amazon never extracts any marketing mileage out of the openness of android. Google just sounds disingenuous here
      - wonderyak 14y ago
        Why would they want to advertise Google or Android? They have a product to sell! Focus!
      - drivebyacct2 14y ago
        Why? Why oh why do they sound disingenuous? AOSP is OSS. Google's proprietary apps, for their propreitary services (GMail, Google Calendar, Google Play), are not. Why d you so wrongly act like Google has to provide those applications? Especially if someone has forked Android to compete with traditional Android offerings?

ljoshua 14y ago

I thought one of the draws of Android was that no specific licensing was necessary to implement on a device? Can someone elaborate on why exactly Acer would need a contract to use Android?

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Google apps: Gmail, Maps, Play Store, etc.
- Create 14y ago
  freemail, OpenStreetMap, F-Droid etc.
  - andybak 14y ago
    Definitely equivalent but not always satisfactory equivalents.
    - Create 14y ago
      Acer has enough capital to make these toys in comparison. OSM was a satisfactory equivalent to AAPL -- to the point of deliberately not acknowledging it (ie. worth stealing). As for f-droid, with all the iFart App clones culled is a definite win for mental health epidemiology.
      - magicalist 14y ago
        OSM was not sufficient for Apple. Their maps are based on a number of providers, including OSM but most especially TomTom. You're thinking of the iphoto maps that got everyone speculating in the first place. Most companies in this space have the capital to replace these apps, but not the will or the ability. You only have to look at the Android UIs they produce to see that you're really going to have to commit if you want to function as primary app provider for your phones. Most companies aren't willing to do this, or take forever and fail (poor meego...)

mtgx 14y ago

If they are using AOSP, they can use it without any license from Google I think. If they want Google's apps, then they need license from Google. If Google wants to standardize the ecosystem and is cracking down on these manufacturers who mess too much with Android then I'm 100% on Google's side. Google needs to be harder on these manufacturers for the good of the consumers, the ecosystem, and ultimately the manufacturers as well. What will the "Android ecosystem" become if they create bigger and bigger incompatibilities and make developers jobs that much harder? If manufacturers really wanted to customize their own OS, then they would never even try using WP8. And Acer is one of the WP8 licenses, too. So Acer wants their cake and eat it, too? Sorry, but no. Google needs to take actions against further fragmentation, and for removing any opportunities Microsoft might have with their more unified OS.

ceejayoz 14y ago
> If they are using AOSP, they can use it without any license from Google I think. I believe they can use the OS, but I don't believe they'd be able to use the "Android" trademark and logo. They'd have to call it something else, which'd probably cut sales dramatically.
- cube13 14y ago
  Does Google have a "Powered by Android" licensing scheme like what the Mozilla foundation has for Firefox's source?
  - mtgx 14y ago
    I doubt it, but I wish they did. I think the Chrome/Chromium model is perfect for a corporation wanting to use open source and give back, while in the same time keeping full control of their software. I wish Android worked like Chrome and Chromium. There should've been a version (Chromium-like) that manufacturers could use and do anything they wanted with it, and a version (Chrome-like) that could only be modified by Google alone, and be the only version Google actually promotes. They're sort of doing it with the "Google experience" Nexus devices, but that seems more like an afterthought more than something that was thought up from the beginning and as main strategy.

eevilspock 14y ago

I'm not sure if this story is reliable, but if it is, will HN users come down as hard on Google as it always does on Apple for being "draconian" and "anti-competitive"? [Not surprised this has already gotten downvoted. Anyone got a mirror?]

esolyt 14y ago
Perhaps people are tired of hearing the "HN is full of Apple haters" shit.
- eevilspock 14y ago
  I'm with you. But what about being tired of the "I hate Apple" shit? I'd almost be for a total ban on anything that mentions "Apple" or "Android" from HN. I'll bet the site would improve 10-fold with no loss of useful info.
- metatronscube 14y ago
  Its true for the most part, everyone here likes to think they are different from a community like Reddit or 4chan, but thats not really the case. If this had Apple in the headline instead of Google then im sure there would be a lot more heavily biased comments ready to jump to all sorts of conclusions with out anything resembling proof. This lot are just as biased as most of the die hard Apple haters from those communities. You know what im tired of hearing, is comments like "Apple never innovates", "Apple is due a fall" ..etc Oh and my favorite one is "The patent system needs reform" but thats all we ever hear from this community. Oh well, deal with it and move on I guess.

ravichhabra 14y ago

Speculation: Google starting from Jelly Bean (or after Jelly Bean), is going to give early source code access to OEM partners. If Acer is going to work on Aliyun some of those early access code could land into Aliyun, which Google does not want?

salem 14y ago

I'm assuming that "Android product cooperation and related technical authorization" means early access to source code for unreleased Android versions and ability to package and market Google products on the phone. That said, if Acer was making plans to work on a competing platform, which happened to be able to run android apps, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable move.

ConstantineXVI 14y ago

Back from the Skyhook incident, it came out that part of the license for the Google apps prevented Samsung from any action "that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android,"[0]. It would seem this clause still stands in the current agreements used by Google, and provided these accusations are true, would be Google's basis for giving Acer the boot. [0] http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/ http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la...