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 535454
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Interesting
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Interesting"
cdude
Member since:
2008-09-21

The Android runtime shipped with BB10 is not Android but a compatibility layer like Wine is for win32. In fact dex do not run on BB10 but you need to repackage nust like you can run some jar's on Android but need to repackage to dex.

That, compatibibility layers, is another story. Even Microsoft does not try to prevent e.g. Linux-Distributions or OSX to offer compatibility with Wine, Samba, etc.

The point is more that if you are going to offer a forked Android (and to get this right: all Androids are forks cause they are taken+extended with own stuff and noone ships an Android vanilla) AND if you are member in the OHA and agreed to the compatibility goal then you need to make sure your fork is compatible.

It just does not matter how much extra-things you put in your fork, how much you changed as long as certain criterias are fullfit. Two of them Aliyun failed:

1. Pass the Android compatibility test-suite.
2. Open the sources of your endproduct so all extensions, modifications, drivers are available to all others just like the Android Vanilla (and all the forks of other OHA mabufactors) are too.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Interesting
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 12:52 in reply to "RE[9]: Interesting"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No, the point is: Google can't claim the ability to run some but not all Android apps on another OS is a valid reason to prevent access to Android while claiming that OHA members can still use rival OSes because it can already be achieved in EVERY major OS. (Maybe Aliyun is using primarily code from Android, maybe it is not. I certainly am not taking Google's word for it.)

In either case, this does not address the matter of Haier and Lenovo actually shipping Aliyun, oPhone, and LePhone phones.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Interesting
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:20 in reply to "RE[10]: Interesting"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Good then that google never claimed that.

Lets stick to the facts. 1) Google claimed Aliyun is an Android fork. 2) Based on that OHA members need to confirm to the OHA terms.

From our discussion I think we are fine with 2). What you question is 1)? It would take Alibaba how ling to prove google wrong on 1) and hence invalidate the.logical consequences of 2)? 5 Minutes? Remember that only them can cause nobody else has access to Aliyun.

If they do that they could make a case, a strong point that would serious damage google, weaken its point 2) up to a level it would bring serious harm to the Android ecosystem if google.continues to demand that. Why would google risk that for a 0.001% market share clone? They need to be rather sure on that else they would not.

But Alibaba keeps silent beside its statement its not. Come on, prove and you win! Don't prove and we know google is absolute right on this.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Interesting
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 12:56 in reply to "RE[9]: Interesting"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Also, the requirements you list are for releasing Android. I have not seen clear proof that OHA membership prevents members from using the OSS components of the AOSP as parts of competing products while also supporting Android. In fact, fandroids have been telling me for 5 years this was possible and Lenovo has been doing it for the last 3 years.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Interesting
by Windows Sucks on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:50 in reply to "RE[9]: Interesting"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

The Android runtime shipped with BB10 is not Android but a compatibility layer like Wine is for win32. In fact dex do not run on BB10 but you need to repackage nust like you can run some jar's on Android but need to repackage to dex.

That, compatibibility layers, is another story. Even Microsoft does not try to prevent e.g. Linux-Distributions or OSX to offer compatibility with Wine, Samba, etc.

The point is more that if you are going to offer a forked Android (and to get this right: all Androids are forks cause they are taken+extended with own stuff and noone ships an Android vanilla) AND if you are member in the OHA and agreed to the compatibility goal then you need to make sure your fork is compatible.

It just does not matter how much extra-things you put in your fork, how much you changed as long as certain criterias are fullfit. Two of them Aliyun failed:

1. Pass the Android compatibility test-suite.
2. Open the sources of your endproduct so all extensions, modifications, drivers are available to all others just like the Android Vanilla (and all the forks of other OHA mabufactors) are too.


All that is assuming Aliyun OS is built on Android. They claim it isn't and just has an Android run time.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[11]: Interesting
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 19:57 in reply to "RE[10]: Interesting"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

First only they can proof.

Second if they do, and that is really nit difficult, then they would win huge. If they don't we know its not the truth.

Theird you can be sure that becore google went down that road they did, maybe in a non-legal way, check the product to have facts rather then being proven to ve evil, do a bad research becorehand and abuse there stand and the OHA for there private interest rather then what it was made for. Its fair to assume google k.ows what they talk about since they have lot more to lose then anybody else when proven wrong. Its fair to assume that if Alibaba does not give us the proof soon then google just nailed it.

Reply Parent Score: 2