4 ms·

Actually I think Google's openness is a quasi. Otherwise you wouldn't see them blocking the acer phone.

myko 14y ago
Acer is free to use Android in any phone they want. They would just have to use a different app store than Google Play. So, Android's openness is absolute. Google's openness (Google Play, Gmail, etc) is not.
- gonzo 14y ago
  point in fact, this is not what happened.
ajross 14y ago
And yet they aren't blocking the Kindle. So how do you square that?
- Mythbusters 14y ago
  I'm sure they would if they could. Amazon is not a member of OHA so google has nothing to enforce that ban with.
  - ajross 14y ago
    So you agree with the flip side argument that Google is just enforcing existing business agreements to which all parties are signatories, you just choose to interpret it as uncharitably as possible for Google. Yawn. Business is business. Using open source software doesn't magically absolve you of responsibility to your contracted partners, nor give you the right to jerk your suppliers around. The simple truth is that Amazon handled this gracefully and produced a great product, and Acer screwed it up and wrecked things for their partner Alibaba. Making Google out to be the bad guy is just fanboism.
    - gonzo 14y ago
      I agreed with you until the last sentence.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      >Business is business Funny, that reminds me of the scorn heaped on Apple for the patent lawsuits against Samsung. Or on Oracle and Microsoft. Business is business, right? Regardless of other companies getting hurt? Also reminds me of this post by Gruber supporting Apple on in app purchases: http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent It's really ironic how people claim their favorite company is better than the others because of blah blah blah reasons, but when it comes to power plays hurting third parties like this, support it by saying "business is business".
      - eurleif 14y ago
        Samsung didn't violate a contract it signed with Apple. The situations really aren't very similar.
      - ajross 14y ago
        Not following at all. Enforcing an existing, voluntary contract is indeed the routine practice of "business" as I understand it. Suing a competitor for patent infringement in an effort to kill its product is not. I don't see a double standard there.
- cek 14y ago
  how would google block Kindle?

myko 14y ago

Acer is free to use Android in any phone they want. They would just have to use a different app store than Google Play. So, Android's openness is absolute. Google's openness (Google Play, Gmail, etc) is not.

gonzo 14y ago
point in fact, this is not what happened.

ajross 14y ago

And yet they aren't blocking the Kindle. So how do you square that?

Mythbusters 14y ago
I'm sure they would if they could. Amazon is not a member of OHA so google has nothing to enforce that ban with.
- ajross 14y ago
  So you agree with the flip side argument that Google is just enforcing existing business agreements to which all parties are signatories, you just choose to interpret it as uncharitably as possible for Google. Yawn. Business is business. Using open source software doesn't magically absolve you of responsibility to your contracted partners, nor give you the right to jerk your suppliers around. The simple truth is that Amazon handled this gracefully and produced a great product, and Acer screwed it up and wrecked things for their partner Alibaba. Making Google out to be the bad guy is just fanboism.
  - gonzo 14y ago
    I agreed with you until the last sentence.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    >Business is business Funny, that reminds me of the scorn heaped on Apple for the patent lawsuits against Samsung. Or on Oracle and Microsoft. Business is business, right? Regardless of other companies getting hurt? Also reminds me of this post by Gruber supporting Apple on in app purchases: http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent It's really ironic how people claim their favorite company is better than the others because of blah blah blah reasons, but when it comes to power plays hurting third parties like this, support it by saying "business is business".
    - eurleif 14y ago
      Samsung didn't violate a contract it signed with Apple. The situations really aren't very similar.
    - ajross 14y ago
      Not following at all. Enforcing an existing, voluntary contract is indeed the routine practice of "business" as I understand it. Suing a competitor for patent infringement in an effort to kill its product is not. I don't see a double standard there.
cek 14y ago
how would google block Kindle?