5 ms·
Replying to my own comment... Regarding Touchwizz and Android app compatibility - without the core Google services (maps, play, etc), many popular Android apps
by RyanZAG 14y ago
Replying to my own comment...
Regarding Touchwizz and Android app compatibility - without the core Google services (maps, play, etc), many popular Android apps will not run. The differences in the underlying platform is also likely to cause many errors and incompatibilities on non-modified Android apps run on Tizen. This means more app crashes and more uncertainty.
In any event, full Android app compatibility and Android apps as first class apps means that Tizen basically is Android in any case - it will have to have Dalvik, Linux ARM compatibility, identical OpenGL interfaces, identical Linux interfaces, etc. Seeing as Android is Apache licensed anyway, I'm having difficulty in seeing the point? Why not just take Android, create a fork, and rename it to Tizen? I don't see any benefits in re-inventing a platform that will just mimic Android (and have all the same limitations to keep compatibility).
Legal issues - I can't see any legal difference in forking Apache licensed code and renaming vs starting from scratch.
Usability - both Samsung Android devices and Tizen devices will have the same Touchwizz UI. Far as I can tell, Samsung is actually aiming for identical usability here.
Compatibility - all of the Google Maps based Apps won't work. Users won't get the great gmail/gtalk/google now integration that they can on Android. No free best-of-breed navigation. No Google Play - users will have to rely on devs uploading their app to Samsung store along with Google Play. Seems like a big point against Tizen here.
Control (for Samsung) - Samsung can already add/remove whatever they want to Android. I'm guessing Google puts certain demands on Samsung to use the Android name and Google apps, but Samsung can just use a different name and no Google apps. In Tizen they're going to have to do this anyway.
The more I look into this, the stranger it becomes. I can't work out what Samsung is trying to accomplish here. This smells like a project they inherited with Intel with the likely purpose being rivalry with Nokia and perhaps internal politics. Maybe some misunderstanding of how much freedom they actually have with Apache licensed Android?
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoGoogle added a non-fragmentation clause to their OEM agreement[1] which is meant to prevent anyone from forking it in the way that Amazon has. You can fork it, but you can't make official Android phones anymore if you do. Obviously Samsung wants to continue to sell their Galaxy S phones. Tizen is a hail mary pass. [1]http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/31/google-tightening-control-of-android-insisting-licensees-abide/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/31/google-tightening-control...
- RyanZAG 14y agoFar as I can tell, those clauses are specifically related to the Android trademark / Google Apps / etc. Creating a full fork (of the publicly available source) as allowed by the Apache license with different name and no direct relation to Android should be just as good as creating Tizen. I guess the sticky point here is the closed-source early access releases that Samsung gets. Google must be threatening access to this if any OEM gets on their bad side. Fairly nasty move if so, and Tizen doesn't protect Samsung here. If Tizen takes off, you can expect Google to drop Samsung's access to early release builds in any event as Google will then try to force customers to use Moto/LG/HTC/etc devices. So I don't think Tizen helps here at all, as Google can drop Samsung's early access rights for any reason they want. They can just as easily decide that Tizen is fragmenting Android.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoNo, the clause applies to Android forks, not just those using the Android name, Acer was forced to cancel a phone using an Android fork going by another name because of it: http://thenextweb.com/asia/2012/09/13/alibaba-claims-google-forced-partner-acer-cancel-aliyun-po/ http://thenextweb.com/asia/2012/09/13/alibaba-claims-google-...
- ben1040 14y agoThat no-forking requirement was a function of Acer being a member of the Open Handset Alliance. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-rival-phone-to-prevent-android-fragmentation/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-...
- OGinparadise 14y agoIf Tizen takes off, you can expect Google to drop Samsung's access to early release builds in any event as Google will then try to force customers to use Moto/LG/HTC/etc devices. The HN gods banned me for saying bad things about Google, but I have one word for you: antitrust.