11 ms·

First, can we stop with the FUD about Google "banning" Acer from releasing a phone. This ArsTech article covers most of it but basically Alibaba was planning to

by swang 14y ago

First, can we stop with the FUD about Google "banning" Acer from releasing a phone. This ArsTech article covers most of it but basically Alibaba was planning to release an OS that could run Android apps but was not certified by the OHA. And Acer as a member of OHA has to enforce Android compatibility on their devices to enforce consistency in Android. The same thing people complain about Android (fragmentation) is what they were trying to avoid. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-rival-phone-to-prevent-android-fragmentation/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-... Regarding the article, whatever Google has controlled since the beginning they have never lost, which is providing the "Google Experience" On Android.

bstar77 14y ago
I think this is an extremely naive view... Devices that don't have gmail, maps, chrome and play is a huge loss for google. It's very much in google's interest to discourage these types of forks, but that's the nature of open source.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  While I agree with your general sentiment, I think the terminology "lost" only makes sense if they "had" it in the first place. Bringing a new device to the market that doesn't pander to Google hardly qualifies as Google "losing" something (Except perhaps in the MPAA sense of the term).
- swang 14y ago
  The article talks of "losing control" not "losing revenue" hence what my post was talking about. There will obviously be some lost revenue, but not really enough for Google to care. At least for now. Mainly Kindle hasn't done much to scare Google. I remember when the first Kindle Fire came out and people were hailing it the end of Google and Android. Silk was going to eat Chrome for breakfast. Amazon Appstore would be the defacto "Android Marketplace". etc etc. I've yet to see any of that come to fruition.
cooldeal 14y ago
I don't think it's FUD to point out the inconsistency that comes with on one hand proclaiming Android to be open and with the other blocking a third party company OEM Acer from shipping Aliyun phones under the threat of pulling early access to betas etc. Being Open implies the chance to fork and fragmentation. Google might be doing good for Android, but it seems to be going further away from being "open". AOSP is open, Android, not so much.
- swang 14y ago
  > I don't think it's FUD to point out the inconsistency that comes with on one hand proclaiming Android to be open and with the other blocking a third party company OEM Acer from shipping Aliyun phones under the threat of pulling early access to betas etc. What you're saying is misleading. Acer were the ones who broke the rules and Google enforced them, for good reason too. If you sign up and agree to be in an organization in order to gain early access to firmware, then you should abide by the rules of the organization. Otherwise, don't join. > Being Open implies the chance to fork and fragmentation Yup. If you don't want to play by Google's rules, do what Amazon did and make your own version. Or as a better example, do what Archos has been doing for near 3+ years. Google provides timely improvements that they eventually send back upstream, but they have no obligation to instantly provide these updates to AOSP to everyone.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Of course Archos recently changed their tune and started releasing tablets with Google Play starting with the G9 generation...
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    >What you're saying is misleading. Acer were the ones who broke the rules and Google enforced them, for good reason too. I find it interesting that you don't think it's misleading for an organization called the "Open Handset Alliance" to have rules stating they can't ship handsets using competing platforms that can run Android apps. Or that it's misleading to call Android open and then withhold key apps, the app store itself and early access which are neither free nor Free or open. So Aliyun/Alibaba is basically screwed because no major OEM can ship their devices regardless of how good their OS is. How is calling Android open not misleading? What other open project has such restrictions? Linux? Firefox? Apache? I don't think even MySQL has such restrictions.
Zigurd 14y ago
It isn't FUD. Google is behaving inconsistently with what they say, and that makes Google a less-than-reliable partner in open source cooperation. Acer was slapped down, yet Haier, also an OHA member, makes both Aliyun and Android devices. Google claims Aliyun is "incompatible" and also claims Alibaba is stealing apps, or, at least, distributing them without the developers' permission. So, which is it? Numerous OHA participate in the OPhone OS development and use. OPhone is roughly equivalent to Aliyun, and is used by China Mobile. Ophone good, but Aliyun bad? The problem is arbitrariness. For each one of Google's justifications for yanking Acer's chain, there is something in Google's track record that is inconsistent.
- swang 14y ago
  Since this thread is off-topic enough, I'll just end with, 1) didn't hear about Haier but then again, Haier is such a small player in phones so maybe Google doesn't care. 2) OPhone, no clue about compatibility or whatnot and I don't really want to spend more time reading through Chinese documentation on it so you tell me if it is truly equivalent to Ailyun. When Amazon somehow gets denied access to AOSP by Google, then I'll care. Maybe Google is being unfair with Acer, but then again Acer is making money with Google and vice-versa so I'm not surprised Google is selectively enforcing the policy.

by swang 14y ago

bstar77 14y ago

I think this is an extremely naive view... Devices that don't have gmail, maps, chrome and play is a huge loss for google. It's very much in google's interest to discourage these types of forks, but that's the nature of open source.

jlgreco 14y ago
While I agree with your general sentiment, I think the terminology "lost" only makes sense if they "had" it in the first place. Bringing a new device to the market that doesn't pander to Google hardly qualifies as Google "losing" something (Except perhaps in the MPAA sense of the term).
swang 14y ago
The article talks of "losing control" not "losing revenue" hence what my post was talking about. There will obviously be some lost revenue, but not really enough for Google to care. At least for now. Mainly Kindle hasn't done much to scare Google. I remember when the first Kindle Fire came out and people were hailing it the end of Google and Android. Silk was going to eat Chrome for breakfast. Amazon Appstore would be the defacto "Android Marketplace". etc etc. I've yet to see any of that come to fruition.

cooldeal 14y ago

I don't think it's FUD to point out the inconsistency that comes with on one hand proclaiming Android to be open and with the other blocking a third party company OEM Acer from shipping Aliyun phones under the threat of pulling early access to betas etc. Being Open implies the chance to fork and fragmentation. Google might be doing good for Android, but it seems to be going further away from being "open". AOSP is open, Android, not so much.

swang 14y ago
> I don't think it's FUD to point out the inconsistency that comes with on one hand proclaiming Android to be open and with the other blocking a third party company OEM Acer from shipping Aliyun phones under the threat of pulling early access to betas etc. What you're saying is misleading. Acer were the ones who broke the rules and Google enforced them, for good reason too. If you sign up and agree to be in an organization in order to gain early access to firmware, then you should abide by the rules of the organization. Otherwise, don't join. > Being Open implies the chance to fork and fragmentation Yup. If you don't want to play by Google's rules, do what Amazon did and make your own version. Or as a better example, do what Archos has been doing for near 3+ years. Google provides timely improvements that they eventually send back upstream, but they have no obligation to instantly provide these updates to AOSP to everyone.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Of course Archos recently changed their tune and started releasing tablets with Google Play starting with the G9 generation...
- cooldeal 14y ago
  >What you're saying is misleading. Acer were the ones who broke the rules and Google enforced them, for good reason too. I find it interesting that you don't think it's misleading for an organization called the "Open Handset Alliance" to have rules stating they can't ship handsets using competing platforms that can run Android apps. Or that it's misleading to call Android open and then withhold key apps, the app store itself and early access which are neither free nor Free or open. So Aliyun/Alibaba is basically screwed because no major OEM can ship their devices regardless of how good their OS is. How is calling Android open not misleading? What other open project has such restrictions? Linux? Firefox? Apache? I don't think even MySQL has such restrictions.

Zigurd 14y ago

It isn't FUD. Google is behaving inconsistently with what they say, and that makes Google a less-than-reliable partner in open source cooperation. Acer was slapped down, yet Haier, also an OHA member, makes both Aliyun and Android devices. Google claims Aliyun is "incompatible" and also claims Alibaba is stealing apps, or, at least, distributing them without the developers' permission. So, which is it? Numerous OHA participate in the OPhone OS development and use. OPhone is roughly equivalent to Aliyun, and is used by China Mobile. Ophone good, but Aliyun bad? The problem is arbitrariness. For each one of Google's justifications for yanking Acer's chain, there is something in Google's track record that is inconsistent.

swang 14y ago
Since this thread is off-topic enough, I'll just end with, 1) didn't hear about Haier but then again, Haier is such a small player in phones so maybe Google doesn't care. 2) OPhone, no clue about compatibility or whatnot and I don't really want to spend more time reading through Chinese documentation on it so you tell me if it is truly equivalent to Ailyun. When Amazon somehow gets denied access to AOSP by Google, then I'll care. Maybe Google is being unfair with Acer, but then again Acer is making money with Google and vice-versa so I'm not surprised Google is selectively enforcing the policy.