If they are using AOSP, they can use it without any license from Google I think. If they want Google's apps, then they need license from Google. If Google wants to standardize the ecosystem and is cracking down on these manufacturers who mess too much with Android then I'm 100% on Google's side.
Google needs to be harder on these manufacturers for the good of the consumers, the ecosystem, and ultimately the manufacturers as well. What will the "Android ecosystem" become if they create bigger and bigger incompatibilities and make developers jobs that much harder?
If manufacturers really wanted to customize their own OS, then they would never even try using WP8. And Acer is one of the WP8 licenses, too. So Acer wants their cake and eat it, too? Sorry, but no. Google needs to take actions against further fragmentation, and for removing any opportunities Microsoft might have with their more unified OS.
> If they are using AOSP, they can use it without any license from Google I think.
I believe they can use the OS, but I don't believe they'd be able to use the "Android" trademark and logo. They'd have to call it something else, which'd probably cut sales dramatically.
I doubt it, but I wish they did. I think the Chrome/Chromium model is perfect for a corporation wanting to use open source and give back, while in the same time keeping full control of their software.
I wish Android worked like Chrome and Chromium. There should've been a version (Chromium-like) that manufacturers could use and do anything they wanted with it, and a version (Chrome-like) that could only be modified by Google alone, and be the only version Google actually promotes. They're sort of doing it with the "Google experience" Nexus devices, but that seems more like an afterthought more than something that was thought up from the beginning and as main strategy.
The most accurate comparison might be with Microsoft's "Signature" line of PCs sold at Microsoft stores. They carry OEM branding, but no craplets or OEM mods.
Instead of trying to build a Nexus brand, it might be more effective for Google to emulate the Signature program.
What about Google Play and all of the Android apps? Lose access to those and you have the Amazon marketplace and some fewer app stores. And I hear Google charges for access to Google Play and Google apps like Google Maps etc.
>If Google wants to standardize the ecosystem and is cracking down on these manufacturers who mess too much with Android then I'm 100% on Google's side.
Google needs to be harder on these manufacturers for the good of the consumers, the ecosystem, and ultimately the manufacturers as well. What will the "Android ecosystem" become if they create bigger and bigger incompatibilities and make developers jobs that much harder?
Err, is this related to this article?
>If manufacturers really wanted to customize their own OS, then they would never even try using WP8. And Acer is one of the WP8 licenses, too. So Acer wants their cake and eat it, too? Sorry, but no. Google needs to take actions against further fragmentation, and for removing any opportunities Microsoft might have with their more unified OS.
Again, I totally lost you here. What has using WP8 got to do with Android or Aliyun? How will Acer using WP8 fragment Android?
>and for removing any opportunities Microsoft might have with their more unified OS.
I thought this is considered anticompetitive and generally frowned on by the HN crowd(regardless of it being legal or not)? If Google does something like that while calling Android "open", it'll become a running joke.
Google needs to be harder on these manufacturers for the good of the consumers, the ecosystem, and ultimately the manufacturers as well. What will the "Android ecosystem" become if they create bigger and bigger incompatibilities and make developers jobs that much harder?
Devil's advocate: How has Kindle Fire hurt consumers? It hasn't but it has hurt Google. This is the same (minus the market share) like Microsoft saying to Samsung, Sony and Acer "Release Android phones and no Windows licenses for you" or something to that effect, considering the Google Apps /vs Android code.
The details are hard to puzzle out. Apparently Alibaba was using "their own OS" (my guess is it's an Android fork a-la Kindle, but that's pure speculation) and Google told Acer (the hardware OEM) to kill it or they'd lose their Android license (for what products it isn't clear -- it seems unlikely that existing products are licensed under contracts that can be revoked like that).
That kind of behavior certainly can be anticompetetive if it's preventing the entrance of new products into the market. If my guess is right and "Aliyun" is an Android fork, then cry me a river -- if Acer wants to sell an official Android device they shouldn't expect to make money selling gray market clones on the side. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if their contracts included a clause covering exactly this (i.e. ship only official Android if you ship any Android at all).
But yes: if Alibaba is really trying to sell a home-grown OS, and Google is trying to kill it, then that's bad.
Not to be too doubtful -- but I don't see anything in that article that says this isn't an Android fork. The fact that they are spending lots of money on development and want to compete with Android doesn't mean they didn't start with it as a base. Android core is open source, well tested, very widely deployed, and works great. Honestly if Alibaba wanted to make a mobile OS play as a new company and didn't start with it I would be very surprised.
If Alibaba's allegation is true (as opposed to a more mundane reason, like a new OS is too crashy to launch), then it is a pretty big deal. Threats like that would make Android a lot less open if you have to choose between your relationship with Google and using AOSP.
There are many good reasons to impose such an agreement: The more OEM "customize" Android phones, the most difficult it is to keep them up to date, and that, as another current story points out, leads to unpatched vulnerabilities hanging out there longer than they should.
But, if Acer and Alibaba were making a different product, with a different ecosystem, where vulnerabilities would not be blamed on Google, that's not a good thing. That will have Amazon wondering if their ODMs are in line for a threat like that.
If my guess is right and "Aliyun" is an Android fork, then cry me a river -- if Acer wants to sell an official Android device they shouldn't expect to make money selling gray market clones on the side.
Lots of speculation from all of us, but assuming that the story is true, you are wrong. First Google says that Android is open source and free to improve so what's the big deal?
Secondly, Google holds a large percentage of the-mobile market through the official Android so anti-trust is listening. A clear case of anti-competitive behavior since Google would not be able to control the non-official forks.
Indeed, what's the big deal? Alibaba is free to improve Android, and they did. Google is free to sell (or not sell) their non-free additions to Android to whoever they want. They presumably choose not to sell to companies producing unbranded Android forks.
Alibaba needs to pick an unencumbered hardware partner if they want to go down this road. Amazon (and whoever the Kindle OEM is) made it work, so it's not like it's impossible.
(Edit for clarity: again, this is presupposing that Alibaba is shipping modified Google-written software without a contract with Google. It's also presupposing that there are manufacturers -- like the Kindle's -- willing/able to take business making unbranded Android devices. If either becomes untrue, then this is definitely anticompetitive.)
This is backwards. Google's closed apps aren't open source. Acer needs a license to use them. Alibaba can use whatever it wants, they just can't get Acer to manufacture a device containing their (closed-source!) modifications to Android without putting Acer's existing software licenses in jeopardy.
If Alibaba's product can't reach market, then that's a problem. But given that many unlicensed Android-derived devices are in production right now, I don't see the problem. They picked the wrong OEM (or Acer misjudged its relationship with Google, or both). Oops.
>Secondly, Google holds a large percentage of the-mobile market through the official Android so anti-trust is listening. A clear case of anti-competitive behavior since Google would not be able to control the non-official forks.
The whole Chinese market is anti-competitive to outsiders.
Now if only they'd wield this power in relation to OEM's who seem intent on crapping up good phones with horrible addon software (MOTOBlur, I'm looking at you...)
The idea that only pure android phones are worthy and that carrier ui layers are the only thing holding them back is silly. Many people like them and ICS replicated many of the things from carrier skins for this reason. Telling partners they can't differentiate is radically hypocritical and likely would just drive more to fork Android.
..carrier ui layers are the only thing holding them back is silly
There's also market fragmentation, but I'd say carrier dumbassery is almost a worse problem.
This "differentiation" or "branding" or "experience" or whatever buzzword-compliant term chosen to describe it almost always makes the device less useful and less functional.
Not just by being ugly, slapdash-looking "let's slap our identity all over this" abominations, but by harming performance. The canonical example was MOTOBlur on the Droid 2. The hardware was decent, it was an incremental upgrade over the original Droid, but it's made almost unusable by the preloaded Moto garbage. Compare a Droid 2 stock vs a Droid 2 running the AOSP version of the same Android release and try to say they're even remotely comparable. Worse battery life, sluggish performance..
Jellybean all on its own is a beautiful system. A fantasy of mine is that, for the next major release, Google enforces the kind of UI requirements being imposed by Microsoft - how much carrier dickery do you think will appear on Windows phones?
The OEMs and carriers want to differentiate in SW too, not just in hardware. They don't want to be dumb pipes or just the "boxes" that android ships in. They happen to suck at SW and screw up the android experience. Without the opportunity to mess with it, Android wouldn't be as attractive to them.
"Jellybean all on it's own" is a non sequitor because Jellybean didn't spring into being all on it's own and fully formed. It incorporated (and ICS before it) a lot of features from non-Google skins.
I really can't think of a single good addon UI. Every single one I've used (TouchWiz, Blur, Sense) has been slower, uglier, and less functional than vanilla. The only reason why my old ass GSM Hero is still usable is because it's running a vanilla ROM.
A quick fix: Google could force OEM's to give users an option to turn off the skin (sans root).
Unfortunately, the carrier duopoly (i.e. lack of competition) is the underlying cause of this problem. Due to the subsidies and pricing power that their market position permits, carriers are able to dictate what devices they offer. If devices from HTC and LG are only differentiated by hardware, in the carrier's eyes, it makes no economic sense to give consumers the choice when they can limit costs by using only one vendor.
The only long-term solution will be a fundamental restructuring of the regulatory regime surrounding wireless spectrum, however, the incumbents are so flush with cash that Washington is having too much fun lining their pockets.
The OEM UI's? I know they get paid to include apps (Going back to the Droid 2, there were a couple of non-uninstallables like Blockbuster), but there's money changing hands for the privilege of a custom UI?
While it is unlikely that there is actual cash-per-tweak in handset look and feel, Samsung got a lot of business with Verizon by providing an iClone-ish Android product. So even when the carrier isn't getting paid to place an app, the carrier controls the channel (in the US), subsidizes the handset, and dictates what the OEM puts on their phone.
I'm not sure if this story is reliable, but if it is, will HN users come down as hard on Google as it always does on Apple for being "draconian" and "anti-competitive"?
[Not surprised this has already gotten downvoted. Anyone got a mirror?]
I'm with you. But what about being tired of the "I hate Apple" shit?
I'd almost be for a total ban on anything that mentions "Apple" or "Android" from HN. I'll bet the site would improve 10-fold with no loss of useful info.
Its true for the most part, everyone here likes to think they are different from a community like Reddit or 4chan, but thats not really the case. If this had Apple in the headline instead of Google then im sure there would be a lot more heavily biased comments ready to jump to all sorts of conclusions with out anything resembling proof. This lot are just as biased as most of the die hard Apple haters from those communities. You know what im tired of hearing, is comments like "Apple never innovates", "Apple is due a fall" ..etc Oh and my favorite one is "The patent system needs reform" but thats all we ever hear from this community. Oh well, deal with it and move on I guess.
Back from the Skyhook incident, it came out that part of the license for the Google apps prevented Samsung from any action "that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android,"[0]. It would seem this clause still stands in the current agreements used by Google, and provided these accusations are true, would be Google's basis for giving Acer the boot.
Speculation: Google starting from Jelly Bean (or after Jelly Bean), is going to give early source code access to OEM partners. If Acer is going to work on Aliyun some of those early access code could land into Aliyun, which Google does not want?
I thought one of the draws of Android was that no specific licensing was necessary to implement on a device? Can someone elaborate on why exactly Acer would need a contract to use Android?
We've no way of knowing if this is still true, but at the time of the Skyhook case shipping Google apps was part of the contracts between OEMs and carriers; it doesn't really matter if there's suitable alternatives if you're legally obligated to provide Google's apps (which in turn allows Google a great deal of control over what else you can ship).
You and I may use find these to be suitable replacements, but Acer clearly did not. And should not, as they are trying to sell phones to the general public.
Acer has enough capital to make these toys in comparison.
OSM was a satisfactory equivalent to AAPL -- to the point of deliberately not acknowledging it (ie. worth stealing). As for f-droid, with all the iFart App clones culled is a definite win for mental health epidemiology.
OSM was not sufficient for Apple. Their maps are based on a number of providers, including OSM but most especially TomTom. You're thinking of the iphoto maps that got everyone speculating in the first place.
Most companies in this space have the capital to replace these apps, but not the will or the ability. You only have to look at the Android UIs they produce to see that you're really going to have to commit if you want to function as primary app provider for your phones. Most companies aren't willing to do this, or take forever and fail (poor meego...)
I'm assuming that "Android product cooperation and related technical authorization" means early access to source code for unreleased Android versions and ability to package and market Google products on the phone.
That said, if Acer was making plans to work on a competing platform, which happened to be able to run android apps, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable move.
Source code is still there. Acer still could have used it. Assuming this is true, Google threatened Acer with removing access to the always closed source Google apps and Play Store. It is a hardball business move and not exactly consistent with the shiny happy feel good part of the open source philosophy, but doesn't really make Android less open.
AOSP is OSS. Google's proprietary apps, for their propreitary services (GMail, Google Calendar, Google Play), are not. Why d you so wrongly act like Google has to provide those applications? Especially if someone has forked Android to compete with traditional Android offerings?
The comment I was replying to was about Google touting openness. I was merely saying that this move was entirely based on parts of Android that were never touted as open.
I think its more about Android Trademark. If I use an android fork, i cannot claim "Powered by Android" unless google approves of it.
You can use the source and do whatever you want. But just don't use the Android name.
Google needs to be harder on these manufacturers for the good of the consumers, the ecosystem, and ultimately the manufacturers as well. What will the "Android ecosystem" become if they create bigger and bigger incompatibilities and make developers jobs that much harder?
If manufacturers really wanted to customize their own OS, then they would never even try using WP8. And Acer is one of the WP8 licenses, too. So Acer wants their cake and eat it, too? Sorry, but no. Google needs to take actions against further fragmentation, and for removing any opportunities Microsoft might have with their more unified OS.