3 ms·

It wasn't ASUS that got slapped down, it was Acer. ASUS, Samsung, Huawei (and probably others beyond Lenovo) have had no trouble distributing AOSP-based product

by fpgeek 13y ago

It wasn't ASUS that got slapped down, it was Acer. ASUS, Samsung, Huawei (and probably others beyond Lenovo) have had no trouble distributing AOSP-based products without Google services. Acer's situation was different for two reasons: 1. Aliyun (Acer's partner in this) was distributed pirated apps via their app store, including pirated Google apps: http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-confirmed-to-be-distributing-pirated-android-apps-many-from-another-pirate-site/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-con... 2. Google claimed that the Android-based OS that Acer and Aliyun had built did not pass the standard Android compatibility tests, in violation of Acer's agreements with the Open Handset Alliance (a prerequisite for their license for the various Google apps). I'm not sure if a third-party verified this claim before the project was killed, but it's plausible. And we do know that most of the non-Google products OHA members distribute in China should pass those same tests. They're usually the same as products the member is selling outside China with Google services, with the exception of China-specific radios.

Zigurd 13y ago
Yeah I was wondering if I got the two confused. You are correct, it was Acer. The other points you bring up are also correct. But there is more: If Aliyun does not pass CTS, it's good enough to run those stolen apps. Also, as I pointed out, other OEMs get away with having both Google logo phones and Aliyun phones. (Aliyun was the Alibaba OS, and has been "spun out" though it's hard to tell if that is a meaningful separation.) Aliyun is certainly not the only app store selling apps that were never submitted by the developer for distribution. It's a commonplace form of sleaze.
- fpgeek 13y ago
  > If Aliyun does not pass CTS, it's good enough to run those stolen apps. I don't think we know that. Just because APKs were listed in a store doesn't mean they did anything useful when installed. I don't recall any evidence one way or the other about how well the various pirated apps actually ran on an Aliyun device. If you know of any, I'd appreciate a pointer. Separately, I agree that Aliyun's sleaze is relatively common, but so what? I'm not suggesting Google should (or even can) proactively police every app store out there. I'm just saying Google is well within their rights to come down hard on one of their partners working with a store that pirates Google apps, wherever it happens to be. Honestly, I'm still puzzled about why Google leaned so much on compatibility in their response. I'd have thought that the issues with unauthorized distribution of Google apps were simpler and more clear-cut.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    I have seen Aliyun handsets. Like other China-market AOSP-derived systems, Aliyun is Android without Google's ecosystem. It will run any Android app up to the API level used in Aluyun you put on it. The claim that it's not CTS compliant is, at best, splitting hairs. No specific incompatibility has ever been claimed, and no set of apps have been shown to fail. Google is free to allow or deny anyone access to their proprietary app suite for Google-logo Android handsets whether they are consistent or arbitrary about it. I'm merely pointing out that that some OEMs, like Huawei and Haier, get away with building both Google-logo Android handsets AND Aliyun handsets, while others do not. Like many Linux-based products in China, there are other things that are wrong with Aliyun in addition to dubious app market practices. It doesn't observe open source licenses, for one thing. But Aliyun being "bad" isn't the point. I am just pointing out that Google is usually, but not always, consistent about enforcing a policy that Android OEMs can't participate in AOSP-based products that compete with the Google ecosystem. In some cases the OEM relationship appears to be more important than a consistent policy, or perhaps licensing regulations differ in the PRC.

by fpgeek 13y ago

Zigurd 13y ago

Yeah I was wondering if I got the two confused. You are correct, it was Acer. The other points you bring up are also correct. But there is more: If Aliyun does not pass CTS, it's good enough to run those stolen apps. Also, as I pointed out, other OEMs get away with having both Google logo phones and Aliyun phones. (Aliyun was the Alibaba OS, and has been "spun out" though it's hard to tell if that is a meaningful separation.) Aliyun is certainly not the only app store selling apps that were never submitted by the developer for distribution. It's a commonplace form of sleaze.

fpgeek 13y ago
> If Aliyun does not pass CTS, it's good enough to run those stolen apps. I don't think we know that. Just because APKs were listed in a store doesn't mean they did anything useful when installed. I don't recall any evidence one way or the other about how well the various pirated apps actually ran on an Aliyun device. If you know of any, I'd appreciate a pointer. Separately, I agree that Aliyun's sleaze is relatively common, but so what? I'm not suggesting Google should (or even can) proactively police every app store out there. I'm just saying Google is well within their rights to come down hard on one of their partners working with a store that pirates Google apps, wherever it happens to be. Honestly, I'm still puzzled about why Google leaned so much on compatibility in their response. I'd have thought that the issues with unauthorized distribution of Google apps were simpler and more clear-cut.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  I have seen Aliyun handsets. Like other China-market AOSP-derived systems, Aliyun is Android without Google's ecosystem. It will run any Android app up to the API level used in Aluyun you put on it. The claim that it's not CTS compliant is, at best, splitting hairs. No specific incompatibility has ever been claimed, and no set of apps have been shown to fail. Google is free to allow or deny anyone access to their proprietary app suite for Google-logo Android handsets whether they are consistent or arbitrary about it. I'm merely pointing out that that some OEMs, like Huawei and Haier, get away with building both Google-logo Android handsets AND Aliyun handsets, while others do not. Like many Linux-based products in China, there are other things that are wrong with Aliyun in addition to dubious app market practices. It doesn't observe open source licenses, for one thing. But Aliyun being "bad" isn't the point. I am just pointing out that Google is usually, but not always, consistent about enforcing a policy that Android OEMs can't participate in AOSP-based products that compete with the Google ecosystem. In some cases the OEM relationship appears to be more important than a consistent policy, or perhaps licensing regulations differ in the PRC.