Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Sep 2012 16:53 UTC
Google There's a bit of a story going on between Google, Acer, and Alibaba, a Chinese mobile operating system vendor. Acer wanted to ship a device with Alibaba's operating system, but Google asked them not to, and Acer complied. The reason is that Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, which prohibits the promotion of non-standard Android implementations - exactly what Alibaba is shipping. On top of that, Alibaba's application store hosts pirated Android applications, including ones from Google.
Thread beginning with comment 535430
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: big mistake
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE: big mistake"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

You do understand that Android apps can run on BB, Windows, Mac, and iOS, don't you, because of reversed-engineered VM emulators? Are these OSes obviously based on Android too?

Edited 2012-09-17 10:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: big mistake
by EvilMonkeySlayer on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:02 in reply to "RE[2]: big mistake"
EvilMonkeySlayer Member since:
2010-04-08

Pretty sure a lot of those are all source code ports of Android. Which is allowed by the license.

In other words, forks.

So, let me get this right. Rather than believing Google outright say this thing is a fork of Android and the fact they've (aliyun) put up pirated apps on their own app store.

Plus, also Acer would be breaking their OHA agreement.

You instead believe a post on an osnews forum that it is "Linux + HTML5" instead? Oh, and that they did a clean room reverse engineering of Android whilst they're at it? (of a very complex and large number of api's.. allowing them to run Google Android Apps flawlessly?)

Do you realise how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: big mistake
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:08 in reply to "RE[3]: big mistake"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No, I don't think it's ridiculous to not believe a company that is now arbitrarily preventing what it has permitted for years. No, I am not basing any knowledge of Aliyun on any post here. I am reserving judgment on Aliyun, and questioning why Rubin had to claim 4 or 5 different reasons, all of which can be shown to be inconsistently enforced. Yes, I actually expect Google to have clarity on this issue, and until they do, I will doubt what they say.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: big mistake
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:17 in reply to "RE[3]: big mistake"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Additionally, of course I believe that Aliyun hosts pirated apps on its store as it has been independently verified. However, this does not explain why Haier was permitted to release an Aliyun phone nor does it explain why Acer is being prevented from releasing an Aliyun phone and/or being threatened to be kicked out of the OHA when it is far easier to get those apps removed (either legally or just in dealing with business partners) than this whole mess is.

Reply Parent Score: 3