3 ms·
> MADA is confidential unfortunately. (Wonder why?) If MADA is so confidential why you talk about some clauses as facts? Or you have proofs of them or you're j
by Oletros 12y ago
> MADA is confidential unfortunately. (Wonder why?)
If MADA is so confidential why you talk about some clauses as facts? Or you have proofs of them or you're just inventing things
> cer was told they'd be removed from the OHA if they shipped Aliyun's fork of Android.
Second time, Aliyun is not an Android fork
Why do you talk about things you clearly don't know? Are you just spreading FUD because of your hate against some companies?
- ogurechny 12y agoIt has already been discussed even in the mainstream news quite some time ago: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-... Presumably (judging by comments on Russian websites), Yandex has got an agreement to include (or included) in the report documents that show you have to play by Google's rules and install Google services on every model in every region of the world once you signed the service agreement, or (even better for them) direct prohibition to pre-install Yandex services.
- Oletros 12y agoYes, I know that has been discussed, but there is no article (and not even in the Ars one) were it is said that an OEM is forbidden to launch a non Google Android device like the op is repeatedly claiming
- ocdtrekkie 12y agoAgain: See the Acer/Alibaba incident.
- Oletros 12y agoApart that what the OHA forbids are forks that doesn't pass the ACT, Aliyun was not an Android fork Please, stop talking about what you clearly don't know. Still waiting those clauses that you post as facts. Can you link to them or not?
- ocdtrekkie 12y agoThe case may actually let us see a new version of the MADA if they can require it be in public court records.