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 535452
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Interesting
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Interesting"
Member since:

My point is nothing is clear. Your theory is that Haier is okay, they can disregard the OHA requirements, just because they are quiet? Nonsense. I'd really love to see that clause: you don't have to exclusively support Android by using AOSP code as long as you stay quiet about it and don't become too successful... we will tell you when you ar being too loud or too successful.

Secondly, oPhone is made with old parts of Android but it is not pre-OHA, it is post-OHA. It is an Android-derived but not-Android-compatible OS. Also, Lenovo also makes the lePhone -- also Android-derived, also not fully compatible.

You are now shifting excuses just an Android is: is it because it's Android derived? Is it because it runs Android apps but not all them (which is true of virtually every Android phone; Google claims BB is fine, but BB claims to run Android apps but not all of them)? Is it because the store has pirated copies of apps (this could be remedied far more easily than banning the OS)?

Google has thrown 4 or 5 reasons against the wall. All of them are inconsistent and not clear.

Edited 2012-09-17 12:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Interesting
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:06 in reply to "RE[10]: Interesting"
cdude Member since:

No, my point is that Haier will very likely not bring new Aliyun OS devices to market. They may got the same memo Acer got but unlike Acer did not forward it to Alibaba which dragged it into the public.

Second, for oPhone there exist following detail

"It is based on technologies initially developed by Android Inc., a firm later purchased by Google, and work done by the Open Handset Alliance."

This means oPhone is not based on Google Android but.on Android Inc Android. Not only legally a huge difference but also technical.

The second part of the sentence about the OHA is a bit missleading in that its not the OHA which developes the next Android version (but also not google alone, multiple partners.coperate there independent of the OHA). What it may mean (misses proper sources) are concepts, ideas or maybe even code (like from Lenovo itself). Hard to guess without proper sources. Do you have better ones? In any case oPhone was long before Google Android and has not much in common. Not even the SDK, the apps or anything else works there. It also will not have the/a Dalvik vm since that was introduced by google later on.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: Interesting
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:13 in reply to "RE[11]: Interesting"
jared_wilkes Member since:

Why would Haier be permitted to release Aliyun phones for a little while but then stopped? Doesn't Google know their own rules?

Also, you keep ignoring the fact that oPhone is not old, pre-Android. Yes, it uses older Android code but it was released 2 years after the OHA was formed. Yes, that old Android code is still Android code.

And, thirdly, yes, the LePhone should also get Lenovo kicked out of the OHA, but that hasn't happened. I'm not going to waste my time educating you and Google about it.

I am merely questioning Google's inconsistency and lack of clarity.

Reply Parent Score: 2