[recoiledsnake]

Andy Rubin:

>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).

[sabret00the]

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.

[taligent]

You know it's funny but what you wrote sounds exactly like what Google did with Java.

[orangecat]

And Google isn't trying to sue Aliyun out of existence, nor forcibly prevent Acer from shipping Aliyun devices.

[recoiledsnake]

> 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.

[sabret00the]

Except Hitachi couldn't have still put out PCs with Microsoft on them. Acer would still be able to put out Android devices.

[cheald]

Google doesn't claim that Android is a Java platform (which will run any Java software).

[w1ntermute]

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.

[cooldeal]

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?

[azakai]

> And basically quit the handset market

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.

[josephlord]

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.

[recoiledsnake]

>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.

[ChuckMcM]

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.

[sabret00the]

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.

[donatzsky]

> 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.

[dannyr]

"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.

[recoiledsnake]

>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?

[donniezazen]

Google is doing business. I has done great so far when it comes to promoting an open platform. You can't expect them to be altruistic.

[josephlord]

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.

[donatzsky]

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.