As a policy we don't submit our apps in any store other than Google Play Store for android as we believe in having one Android platform is beneficial for community (Including Amazon Store).
Take down notice? Where to send it? So Hire a lawyer in China to fight them? How long will that battle go on and are we too naive to assume we can fight Alibaba and win in China under their law?
Who uploaded them? Has anyone sent takedown requests?
I've no idea of the process for their store but without more information that doesn't prove them bad anymore than pirate content on YouTube makes Google the bad guys.
By claiming Android compatibility, it's claiming to be the same platform when it isn't. The fact that even people like you, presumably a technically savvy IT insider, can't tell and are easily confused over that point is exactly why Google picked this fight.
My first instinct was to post here jokes about how Android is open, but in a closed way. I'm generally speaking an iOS/Apple symapathist. Just check my posting history. But on reflection and investigation fo what's actually going on, I think Google are trying to do the right thing. They have no leverage over Alibaba directly though, so they're putting pressure on Acer. If Acer wanted to fork Android like B&N or Amazon then fine, but getting the benefits of their OHA commitments means meeting their responsibilities. Supporting a marketing parasite like Alibaba is a step too far.
If you have emailed Aliyun and asked them to take it off then absolutely they are doing wrong leaving it on there. I haven't seen any information about what needs to be done to submit apps or if there is any review process (which should at least have caught the obvious Google apps).
If they don't remove it fairly promptly then yes maybe Google can take some action. I would expect that with clear cases of copyright infringement that Google at least could take a case.
In the mean time update your app to detect when it is running on Aliyun and include a half screen promotion for China's leading real Android phone.
So I have to keep searching if a Chinese company is pirating my apps? (How would I even know?).
They had the apps for a while and we knew about it only because google called them out.
How about you ask the guy who stole your car (After figuring out who stole it) and if they don't return it to you, then complain to police?
I don't know the Android platform but if your app logging shows massive numbers of devices that aren't matched by downloads reported by the Google store add some additional logging to try to work out why.
If the scale isn't large don't worry about it.
It is copyright infringement, you still have your car (going back to your analogy). Also it may be that Aliyun is the used car dealer that has stolen cars but don't know it, the pirates are the ones who uploaded/submitted it to them.
There have been cases on Apple and Google stores of copyright infringing apps although these get removed when reported.
in case anyone else is confused, the issue seems to be this:
* there is a group called the open handset alliance (OHA), formed by google and others, that gives certain benefits to hardware makers. to be a member of that group you have to commit to not release incompatible versions of android.
* alibaba have created software for a smartphone that acer were going to release, called aliyun.
* everyone seems to agree that aliyun is not compatible with android (in the sense required by the OHA agreement). it can, however, run some android applications.
* the disagreement is about whether or not aliyum is a "version of android". if it is, then google can kick acer out of the OHA (which acer does not want; hence the phone would be blocked). alibaba is arguing that it is not (in particular, it does not use the dalvik vm), so acer should be free to release the phone and remain in the OHA.
Google is threatening Acer to not make phone based on Aliyun OS while Haier Group who is another member of OHA have already shiped an Aliyun OS phone[1]. No question of "fragmentation" were asked back then. Hypocrisy at its best.
I am very thoroughly in Apple's camp. I have owned several iPhones, an iPad, and more Macs than I can count. This is what I use personally, and what I program for.
Although I don't use Android myself, I'm glad it exists. It keeps Apple on their toes. I don't think Apple will make much of a dent in the Android ecosystem, despite the fact that Steve Jobs apparently wanted to.
But now it's turning out that Google faces some of the same issues as Apple, doesn't it? The Android ecosystem is generally more open than iOS, but now we see that it has its limits.
Personally, I think Google is doing the right thing here. If this secondary phone OS really does contain a lot of Android frameworks, as they claim, then I think Google is right to be upset about this.
Interesting to see what the fan base's general reaction is going to be to this.
The pirated app thing was brought up after the fact, and really has nothing to do with the original issue- that google is strong arming a company to prevent a competing OS from being released.
Besides, claiming that Alibabi supports piracy because there are pirated apps in their store is the same as saying Google supports malware because their stores have sold infected apps.
That's not what I got. My understanding of the situation was that Google is saying Alibaba can't claim to be Android compatible if they are not. Alibaba is saying they are claiming no such thing, but their marketplace seems to not reflect that claim.
They aren't trying to prevent a competing OS at all.
sure, it can be forked. Not even Google is disputing that. They're just saying that, if you want to fork it, you don't get to be in Google's "handset alliance" anymore.
The Google Play store has plenty of pirated apps on it all the time, which you often have to DMCA Google for any chance of getting taken down. I don't think that's a big difference here.
"The Android ecosystem is generally more open than iOS, but now we see that it has its limits."
No, this is not about Android. Acer joined a "don't fork Android" club, and now Google told them that if they support a fork they have to leave the club.
Sounds like what Oracle wanted Google to do with Java/Dalvik/Android. Can you explain why you think this is different or if you thought Oracle should have got their way?
Google is using Java language and its API, not JVM or its libs. Google never called Android a Java compatible or Java. Google has written all of its libs and the Dalvik VM.
Now look at this story, it's a company claiming to be Android compatible and using Android runtimes. All they did was a fork and customization of Android. Not there's anything wrong with that, but if you are a member of OHA you agree not to do it.
So there you go:
Google never agreed to anything, Acer did.
Google wrote code and used non-copyrightable part of Java, Alibaba did not (but they still didn't do anything wrong).
The difference is that you are free to use the Android CTS, unlike the Java TCK, which had a Field Of Use restriction that did not allow using it for mobile.
The big difference is that you can do whatever you want with Android and it's components, but don't expect any help, from the OHA if you are making something incompatible.
Does that really help? Sun offered a different platform for mobile which Android is a massive deviation from. J2ME was rubbish but does that change their rights.
Is the defence of this action that Google aren't quite as unreasonable as Oracle? Is that the standard we hold "don't be evil" to?
The legal tool being used is different but it definitely seems anti-competitive.
I would not call this a threat, I would call this a "friendly reminder" or a warning. The OHA members agreed not to make devices with incompatible versions of Android, Google simply pointed out that Aliyun qualifies as an incompatible version of Android. They can't take Alibaba to court for that because Alibaba has not agreed to not ship devices with incompatible Android implementations.
The troubling thing I see in all this is that, if Google gets all contract hardware manufacturers to join the OHA, then there will be nobody to manufacturer your Android OSP hardware.
>So there’s really no disputing that Aliyun is based on the Android platform and takes advantage of all the hard work that’s gone into that platform by the OHA.
>So if you want to benefit from the Android ecosystem, then make the choice to be compatible. Its easy, free, and we’ll even help you out. But if you don’t want to be compatible, then don’t expect help from OHA members that are all working to support and build a unified Android ecosystem.
How "open" is something if you can't fork it and be left in peace to negotiate with the OEMs to ship it? Aliyun is already missing the Google Play Store and the official Google apps.
The "don't expect help from OHA" line is especially ironic given that Acer scheduled a press conference to announce making Aliyun phones before being strong armed by Google into canceling it.
Acer really had no choice, Android has 67% of the market and iOS has the other 30%. Losing early access to code and access to the Google Play store and Google apps will basically kill their handset business because the competition like Samsung, HTC, Sony, Motorola etc. will have those advantages.
They would basically have to quit the handset market outside China to make Aliyun phones for the Chinese market. Forking is a fundamental tenet and in many cases the lifeblood of open source. If you don't want that, put that in the license and do not call it "open" instead of artificial after-the-fact restrictions like this. If you make something open, people are going to eventually do something with it that you may not like.
What next, forbid retailers from selling Aliyun phones or threaten to pull all Android devices from them?
The only differences I see between this and Microsoft's OEM restrictions against other OSes in the 90s is that Android is not a monopoly(though it is effectively one for Acer), and that Android is open source(again, Acer doesn't really have much leverage to go on it's own with Android code).
The problem is that Aliyun doesn't simply fork Android and run it's own App Store (as Amazon). It instead tries to rewrite bits, use some bits and create a Frankenstein type monster. Again, that's no real issue. However the real issue is that it's claiming to be Android Compatible, which means it's attempting to market itself off of Android's back. Add that with the fact they've stolen apps and apps written for Aliyun don't work on Android and we're all in a right pickle.
If anyone wants to fork Android, they're free to. But don't claim Android compatibility after messing with the APIs. Basically Aliyun would be a leach for Android platform and Google has the right to throw it's weight around in that regard.
Once again, Amazon doesn't mention Android when talking about the Kindle Fire and they've never heard a peep out of Google or Andy Rubin. If Acer are that convinced that Google is doing them wrong, they're more than free to leave the OHA and start having press conferences left, right and centre.
> nor forcibly prevent Acer from shipping Aliyun devices
You and me seem to have different definitions for the term 'forcibly', because that's exactly what they seem to be doing here, like Microsoft forced Hitachi not to ship dual boot systems with BeOS under the threat of pulling Windows.
It's really quite simple. Acer is part of the OHA, so they have to follow OHA rules. It has nothing to do with Android, and everything to do with the OHA. If they want to use Android in any way they want, they can leave the OHA.
The chilling effect on Android forks is the same, while it is funny that the Open Handset Alliance doesn't seem to be really open. All the major phone OEMs are part of it, meaning that Android forks will have hardware and marketing support cut off from them.
>If they want to use Android in any way they want, they can leave the OHA.
And basically quit the handset market, as described in the GP post. Isn't that like saying if Compaq wanted to ship BeOS or dual boot machine, it could forgo getting the OEM incentives that Dell, HP etc. received from Microsoft?
There are non-OHA Android products that are successful: The Kindle and Nook, for example. Those happen to be tablets and not phones, but I don't see a fundamental reason for that.
> Isn't that like saying if Compaq wanted to ship BeOS or dual boot machine, it could forgo getting the OEM incentives that Dell, HP etc. received from Microsoft?
Almost, but not quite.
First, Microsoft was an absolute monopoly in the market. Android isn't, but it is true that the main competitor is Apple which doesn't let you use their OS, so Android's position as a licenseable OS is pretty dominant. You could say that's not Android's fault though.
Second, in the Microsoft case, Compaq could ship BeOS but it would then have to lose all of Windows. With Android, if you ship Aliyun then you can still use core Android, but you do get that code later, and you also lose the ability to use the proprietary stuff like the app store and maps and so forth.
I agree these are not necessarily huge differences, there is still something to be said for Google having a tremendous amount of power here and is using it. But it is not quite as bad as things were with Microsoft.
Whether Google is an absolute monopoly depends on how you define the market. It isn't a monopoly in the market for consumers to buy mobile phones BUT in the market for manufacturers to license mobile phone OSes it probably does have a monopoly position in the market.
WebOS, Boot to Gecko and even WinMo have fairly small proportion of the market even combined.
>Second, in the Microsoft case, Compaq could ship BeOS but it would then have to lose all of Windows. With Android, if you ship Aliyun then you can still use core Android, but you do get that code later, and you also lose the ability to use the proprietary stuff like the app store and maps and so forth
Wrong, Compaq would've lost the OEM incentives and discounts which would've put them at a disadvantage versus HP and Dell, but they still would've been able to ship Windows.
the Open Handset Alliance doesn't seem to be really open
This is sentiment is wrong. Building a phone OS takes a lot of people and resources, that is why you build a community to do it, anyone in the community can propose changes which the community can adopt or not, but the community as a whole benefits. So the OHA is completely open in the community of OHA members.
Alibaba should either join the OHA and contribute their concepts as part of their vision, or Acer should leave the OHA and go work with Alibaba on their own phone OS. But Google objected to Acer having its cake and eating it too, so what? I don't think anyone is being 'chilled' here.
In the same way that CyanogenMod does? Around the time of Jellybean's launch, Google released the PDK which made it easier and less intrusive to overlay the Android source code. As a result alpha builds of CyanogenMod 10 were in the wild before the Nexus S (or any branded device) released a Jellybean device. In fact, HTC still haven't even managed to get Jellybean on to their current flagship device. The only people stopping/slowing-down hardware support at this moment in time is the OEMs.
> Isn't that like saying if Compaq wanted to ship BeOS or dual boot machine, it could forgo getting the OEM incentives that Dell, HP etc. received from Microsoft?
No, since BeOS is not claiming to be compatible with Windows. If they wanted to ship machines with ReactOS, though, that would be a different story.
Google is not complaining because Acer is making phones with a competing OS (they make some WP7 phones as it happens), but because they're making a phone claiming Android compatibility that isn't really compatible.
"They would basically have to quit the handset market outside China to make Aliyun phones for the Chinese market. Forking is a fundamental tenet and in many cases the lifeblood of open source. If you don't want that, put that in the license and do not call it "open" instead of artificial after-the-fact restrictions like this. If you make something open, people are going to eventually do something with it that you may not like."
Your point would only be valid if Google stopped Amazon from forking Android.
>Your point would only be valid if Google stopped Amazon from forking Android.
They couldn't, because they didn't have someone like Acer making those phones. Microsoft couldn't and did not stop VA Linux from shipping Linux boxes so I am not sure what point you're trying to make.
I wonder if the OHA rules would prohibit someone like Acer from shipping phones running Amazon's fork of Android. Are the details of the OHA rules public, or are they secret like the Microsoft OEM agreements?
No, I don't expect altruism but I don't believe that Android (the full Google experience) is an open platform either. It's closer to Windows than Debian and licensees of the Google platform have to sign extensive and restrictive contracts.
Android, as a platform, is open. You can take the code and do with it what you want. However, if you want to provide the "Google experience" (Play Store, Gmail etc.) then you have to follow Google's rules - rules that are designed to keep everyone in line and avoid fragmentation.
I have no doubt that without those rules we would quickly find ourselves back in the bad old days of Symbian with S60 and UIQ, with a number of competing, barely compatible, versions of Android. Samsung, in particular, would probably split as soon as they got the chance - during the Galaxy S3 launch they seemingly did their best not to mention Google and is trying to build their own parallel ecosystem - only the threat of not getting the Google apps and early source access is keeping them in check.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-con...